{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102829",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-12-23 09:27:10",
    "domain_names": [
        "novartisgroups.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Novartis AG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "BRANDIT GmbH",
    "respondent": [
        "huang jing jing"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The following facts were asserted by Complainant and not contested by Respondent:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant a global healthcare company based in Switzerland and is the proprietor of the NOVARTIS trademarks. The Complainant’s products are sold in about 155 countries, reaching nearly 800 million people globally in 2018. About 125 000 people of 145 nationalities work at Novartis around the world. The Complainant has a strong presence in China where the Respondent is located and has an established Internet presence with its websites at < www.novartis.com> and specifically in China at < www.novartis.com.cn>.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on October 27, 2019.\r\n\r\nComplainant relies on its rights in the NOVARTIS trademark established by ownership of its portfolio of trademark registrations and extensive global use of the mark on its pharmaceutical products.\r\n\r\nComplainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its NOVARTIS trademark as it incorporates entirely the Complainant’s well-known, distinctive trademark in its entirety in combination with a generic term “groups”. The addition of the gTLD “.com” does not add any distinctiveness to the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant refers to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (\"WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0\"), paragraph 1.11. as well as the International Business Machines Corporation v. Sledge, Inc. \/ Frank Sledge WIPO Case No. D2014-0581 where the Panel stated the following: “In addition, it is generally accepted that the addition of the top-level suffix in the domain name (e.g., “.com”) is to be disregarded under the confusing similarity test”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name asserting that the Complainant has never granted the Respondent any right to use the NOVARTIS trademark within the Disputed Domain Name; that the Respondent is not affiliated to the Complainant in any form; that the Complainant has not found that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name nor has Respondent any legitimate interest over the Disputed Domain Name or the major part of it as shown by the fact that searches using the GOOGLE and BAIDU search engines for the terms “Novartis” and “groups” returned results which all point to the Complainant and its business activities; on 17 December 2019, when this Complaint was being prepared the Dispute Domain Name redirected to active websites displaying gambling information which shows that the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark is not being used for a bona fide offering of goods or services.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that the Respondent deliberately chose to use the term “groups” combined with its well-known, distinctive trademark NOVARTIS in order to confuse internet users who search for the Complainant and its associated entities, and to confuse them as to the source or sponsorship, and\/or to attract internet traffic to its own gambling site by benefiting from the Complainant’s global renown.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant alleges that the Respondent very likely knows about the Complainant and its trademark; the Complainant’s trademark NOVARTIS is a well-known, distinctive trademark worldwide and in China where the Respondent resides; the Respondent has failed in presenting a credible evidence-backed rationale for registering the Disputed Domain Name.\r\n\r\nFurthermore the Complainant alleges and has provided evidence that the Disputed Domain Name has been actively used to redirect to a website displaying gambling information. Additionally, the Complainant has tried to reach the Respondent by a cease-and-desist letter sent on 18 November 2019 to the email address provided on the active webpage as the Respondent was using privacy shield to conceal its identity. The cease and desist letter was also sent via the online contact form. Two reminders were sent on 03 December 2019 and 10 December 2019 and no response was received by the Complainant.\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings in connection to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "No administratively compliant response has been filed.\r\n\r\n",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name <novartisgroups.com> is identical or confusingly similar to the NOVARTIS trademark and 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": "This Panel grants the Complainants requests that the language of the proceeding should be English based on the following facts which show that the Respondent obviously understands English so as to avoid any potential unfairness or unwarranted delay in ordering the Complainant to translate the Complaint.\r\n\r\nThe Disputed Domain Name redirects to a website where it displays English terms on its webpage, e.g. “Macau Online Entertainment”, “Live Casino”, “Computer Game” etc.\r\n\r\nThe Disputed Domain Name includes the Complainant’s trademark NOVARTIS in its entirety combined with a generic term “groups”, which is in the English language.\r\n\r\nThe Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under the UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Mr James Jude Bridgeman"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-02-12 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of international trademark registration NOVARTIS designating inter alia China registration no: 663765 registered on 26 May 1997 in classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9. 10,14, 16, 17, 20, 22, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 40, 42.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "NOVARTISGROUPS.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}