{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103419", "time_of_filling": "2020-11-20 08:36:22", "domain_names": [ "NovartisChina.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Novartis AG" ], "complainant_representative": "BRANDIT GmbH", "respondent": [ "wenwu tang " ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant, Novartis AG, was established in 1996 through a merger of two other companies, Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz. The Complainant is the holding company of the Novartis Group which is one of the biggest global pharmaceutical and healthcare groups. The Complainant’s group solutions to address the evolving needs of patients worldwide by developing and delivering innovative medical treatments and drugs. The Complainant’s products are manufactured and sold in many regions worldwide, including China. The Complainant has a strong presence in China where the Respondent is located. The Complainant has been present in China for the last three decades, during which it launched about 62 medicines. The Complainant’s official global and local websites in China connect customers to its official sales and service locations. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names, and , were registered on October 26, 2020, and October 29, 2020, respectively which resolve to inactive webpages.\r\n", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain names. ", "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT' CONTENTIONS IN BRIEF:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the NOVARTIS marks on the basis that the disputed domain names wholly incorporate the Complainant’s trademark and the addition of a hyphen and geographical term “China” and generic top-level domain name suffix (“gTLD”) “.com” are insufficient to avoid the finding that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its NOVARTIS mark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also argues that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. In addition, the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant nor did the Complainant license or authorize the Respondent to use the NOVARTIS mark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further asserts that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith as the Respondent should have known of the Complainant’s NOVARTIS mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent is attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website.\r\n", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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 names (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 names have been registered and are 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. \r\n\r\nPreliminary Issue: Request for Consolidation\r\n\r\nA preliminary issue raised by the Complainant relates to the consolidation of two domain names in the same complaint against a single respondent. Paragraph 3(c) of the UDRP Rules provides that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder. Since in this case, the Respondent is the same for both of the disputed domain names, consolidation is not an issue.\r\n\r\n\r\nPreliminary Issue: Language of Proceedings\r\n\r\nParagraph 11 of the Rules provides that:\r\n\r\n“(a) Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.”\r\n\r\nThe language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain names is English and is Chinese.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English for the following reasons:\r\n\r\n(i) the disputed domain names are in English;\r\n\r\n(ii) the registration agreement for one of the disputed domain names is in English; and\r\n\r\n(iii) the proceeding will be put through unnecessary trouble and delay if Chinese were made the language of the proceeding.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding. \r\n\r\nThe Panel cites the following with approval: “Thus, the general rule is that the parties may agree on the language of the administrative proceeding. In the absence of this agreement, the language of the Registration Agreement shall dictate the language of the proceeding. However, the Panel has the discretion to decide otherwise having regard to the circumstances of the case. The Panel’s discretion must be exercised judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties taking into consideration matters such as command of the language, time and costs. It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her abilities to articulate the arguments for the case.” (See Groupe Auchan v. xmxzl, WIPO Case No. DCC2006 0004).\r\n\r\nHaving considered the above factors, the Panel determines that English be the language of the proceeding. The Panel agrees that the Respondent appear to be familiar with the English language, taking into account their selection of the English-language trademark and the domain names in dispute. In the absence of an objection by the Respondent, the Panel does not find it procedurally efficient to have the Complainant translate the Complaint and evidence into Chinese. \r\n", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Mr. Jonathan Agmon" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-01-11 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of the trademark NOVARTIS (International Registration No. 666218 and 663765) designating China and other countries, which were registered on October 31, 1996 and July 1, 1996 respectively. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant also holds the domain name registrations which contain the NOVARTIS trademark, and .", "decision_domains": { "NOVARTISCHINA.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "NOVARTIS-CHINA.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }