{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102706",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-10-16 18:13:12",
    "domain_names": [
        "novarrtis.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Novartis AG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "BRANDIT GmbH",
    "respondent": [
        "Weng LLC"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it is a global healthcare company based in Switzerland that provides solutions to address the evolving needs of patients worldwide. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that it is the owner of the well-known trademark NOVARTIS, registered as a word and figurative mark in several classes across numerous countries all over the world including in Australia where the Respondent resides. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that it has a strong presence in Australia where the Respondent is located. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that its trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant notes that due to extensive use, advertising and revenue associated with its trademarks worldwide, it enjoys a high degree of renown around the world, including in the Australia, where the Respondent is located. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that it has registered several domain names containing the term “NOVARTIS”, for example, <novartis.com> (created on April 2, 1996) and <novartis.net> (created on April 25, 1998). \r\n\r\nThe Complainant clarifies that it uses these domain names to connect to a website through which it informs potential customers about its \"NOVARTIS\" trademark and its products and services. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the disputed domain name, incorporates the Complainant’s well-known trademark \"NOVARTIS\" in its entirety and the additional letter “r” is a mere typo. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant considers that the addition of the top-level domain “.COM” does not add any distinctiveness to the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that, as the term “NOVARTIS” is distinctively recognizable in the disputed domain name, the latter should be considered as confusingly similar to the trademark \"NOVARTIS\" for the purposes of this proceeding.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it has never granted the Respondent any right to use the \"NOVARTIS\" trademark within the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that the Respondent is not affiliated to it in any form. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that it became aware of unauthorised emails being sent from the disputed domain name, impersonating the Complainant's staff.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant clarifies that these phishing emails, requesting a payment by bank transfer to an “escrow account in Hong Kong”, were sent to one of its business partners.  \r\n\r\nThe Complainant indicates that the sender of these emails impersonated the Complainant's staff by copying its signature.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that it is well-established UDRP case law that the use of a domain name for fraudulent or phishing purposes negates rights and legitimate interests.  \r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that UDRP Panels in previous cases have found that in the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use a widely-known trademark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name could be claimed.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant notes that the disputed domain name does not resolve to any active website. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that there is no evidence showing that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or with a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant takes the view that it is clear that the Complainant has become a distinctive identifier associated with the term \"NOVARTIS\" and that the Respondent’s sending of fraudulent emails impersonating Complainant’s staff should be considered as evidence that the Respondent has no right nor legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant reaffirms that its trademark registration pre-dates the registration of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent has never been authorized by the Complainant to use its trademarks nor to register the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent has chosen to incorporate the well-known trademark NOVARTIS in the disputed domain name in its entirety and added an “r” which is a mere typo of the term \"NOVARTIS\". \r\n\r\nThe Complainant considers that it is inconceivable that the Respondent did not have the well-known trademark \"NOVARTIS\" in mind when it registered the disputed domain name and registered it only for the purpose to mislead Internet users and engage in deceptive and fraudulent activities. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant highlights that the Respondent’s sending of emails impersonating the Complainant is clearly bad faith use of the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant notes that the Respondent has been passively holding the disputed domain name and that a finding of bad faith in this regard is supported by previous UDRP decisions.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent’s conduct demonstrates that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. \r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "No administratively compliant Response has been filed. ",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).",
    "bad_faith": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).",
    "procedural_factors": "The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Michele Antonini"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-12-02 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of numerous registrations for the trademark \"NOVARTIS\", including the Australian trademark No 712454, registered on April 24, 1998, for goods and services in classes 1, 5, 9, 10, 29, 30, 31, 32. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on September 23, 2019. ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "NOVARRTIS.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}