{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102870",
    "time_of_filling": "2020-01-20 10:01:21",
    "domain_names": [
        "novartisindia.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Novartis AG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "BRANDIT GmbH",
    "respondent": [
        "Novartis Limited"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant (NOVARTIS AG) is a global healthcare company based in Switzerland that provides solutions to address the evolving needs of patients worldwide. The Complainant manufactures drugs such as clozapine (Clozaril), diclofenac (Voltaren), carbamazepine (Tegretol), valsartan (Diovan) and many others.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s products are sold in about 155 countries and they reached nearly 800 million people globally in 2018. About 125 000 people of 145 nationalities work at Novartis around the world.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has a strong presence in US where the Respondent is located. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <novartisindia.com> was registered on 10 October 2019 and is held by the Respondent. \r\n\r\nThe domain name website (i.e. website to which the disputed domain name resolves) has no genuine content apart from a notification that reads \"Website coming soon! Please check back soon to see if the site is available.\"\r\n\r\nThe Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant. \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": " COMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nCONFUSING SIMILARITY\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that:\r\n\r\n- The disputed domain name contains the distinctive “NOVARTIS” word element, and it is thus almost identical (i.e. confusingly similar) to Complainant’s trademarks.\r\n\r\n- The addition of the term “INDIA” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademarks, as it does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, Complainant's trademarks and its business. On the contrary, such geographical indication may further mislead the consumers.\r\n\r\nThus, according to the Complainant the confusing similarity between Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain name is clearly established.\r\n\r\nNO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that:\r\n\r\n- The Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Although the Respondent calls itself “Novartis India” or “Novartis Limited”, there is no evidence showing that the Respondent is in any form affiliated to or authorized by the Complainant. It therefore seems very likely that the Respondent has provided false WHOIS information when registering the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n- The Complainant has not authorized, permitted or licensed the Respondent to use Complainant’s trademarks in any manner.\r\n\r\n- Furthermore, the domain name website has been inactive, which implies that there is no Respondent’s intention to use the disputed domain name for legitimate purposes.\r\n\r\n\r\nBAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that:\r\n\r\n- Complainant’s trademarks pre-dates the registration of the disputed domain name and the Respondent has never been authorized by the Complainant to register it.\r\n\r\n\r\n- Complainant’s trademarks enjoy status of well-known trademarks and the Respondent must have been aware of their existence while registering the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n\r\n- The purpose of the use and registration of the disputed domain has been, inter alia, an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, companies by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks and its company name.\r\n\r\n\r\n- Disputed domain name website is under construction, which constitutes passive holding. Registration and passive holding of a domain name, which has no other legitimate use and clearly refers to the Complainant's trademark, may constitute registration and use in bad faith.\r\n\r\n\r\n- Complainant has tried to reach the Respondent by a cease-and-desist letter. Without receiving reply from the Respondent, subsequently, the Complainant followed up by two reminders. However, the Complainant has not received any response from the Respondent. The Respondent’s non-response to the cease-and-desist letter infers bad faith use of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n- Additionally, the Respondent has very likely provided false WHOIS information and was using privacy shield to conceal its identity. Such conduct adds up to the clear indication of bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant presents the following evidence which has been assessed by the Panel:\r\n\r\n- Information about the Complainant and its business;\r\n- Copies of the correspondence made by the Complainant to the Respondent (cease and desist letters; follow-up correspondence);\r\n- Excerpt from WHOIS database regarding disputed domain name;\r\n- Screenshots of relevant websites;\r\n- Excerpts from trademark databases and list of Complainant's Trademarks.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not provided any response to the complaint.\r\n",
    "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": [
        "JUDr. Jiří Čermák"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-03-04 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is, inter alia, a registered owner of the following trademarks containing a word element \"NOVARTIS”:\r\n(i)\tNOVARTIS (word), US Trademark, priority date 10 February 2004, registration date 20 September 2005, trademark registration no. 2997235, registered for goods in int. class 5;\r\n(ii)\tNOVARTIS (word), EU Trademark, priority date 5 July 1996, trademark application no. 000304857, registered for goods and services in int. classes 1, 5, 9, 10, 29, 30, 31, and 32.\r\n\r\nBesides other national, EU and International (WIPO) trademarks consisting of the \"NOVARTIS\" denomination.\r\n(collectively referred to as \"Complainant's trademarks\").\r\n\r\nThe word element \"NOVARTIS\" is also a part of Complainant's registered company name NOVARTIS AG and various other companies affiliated with the Complainant. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has also registered a number of domain names under generic Top-Level Domains (\"gTLD\") and country-code Top-Level Domains (\"ccTLD\") containing the term “NOVARTIS”.\r\n\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "NOVARTISINDIA.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}