{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103580",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-04-19 10:16:59",
    "domain_names": [
        "Verify-Novartis.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Novartis AG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "BRANDIT GmbH",
    "respondent": [
        "Victor Iliyushkin"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is the famous Swiss pharmaceutical  company that produces a broad range of products. It was created in 1996 through a merger of two other companies Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz, and is the holding company of the Novartis Group. It has extensive registrations of trademarks throughout the world and a range of domain names that it uses in its business. One of those domain names resolves to the website of Sandoz, which is now a Division of the Complainant, at www.sandoz.com.\r\n\r\nIt has come to the notice of the Complainant that the disputed domain name <verify-novartis.com> has been registered and is being used to support a website that purports to enable internet users to verify that pharmaceuticals are NOVARTIS products. The disputed domain name was registered on 25 February 2021 and the Respondent is the registrant. The Complainant maintains that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves includes material that has clearly been taken from the website at www.sandoz.com and is a serious infringement on its rights. That is so because the implication is that the disputed domain name is an official Novartis domain name, which it is not, and that it can be used with the approval of the Complainant to verify if products are NOVARTIS products, which it also untrue. The Complainant is concerned that the Respondent's domain name and website are injurious to public health and also that they are a totally unauthorised infringement on the Complainant's rights and good reputation.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has therefore instituted this proceeding to have the disputed domain name transferred to itself.  ",
    "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 name.",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\n1.The Novartis Group is one of the world’s biggest global pharmaceutical and healthcare groups and has a strong presence in Russia where the Respondent is located. \r\n\r\n2.The Complainant is the owner of the well-known trademark NOVARTIS registered as both a word and device mark in several classes worldwide, including Russia. \r\n\r\n3.The Complainant adduces in evidence extracts of its trademark registrations worldwide. The NOVARTIS trademark is well-known and has been recognised in prior UDRP proceedings.\r\n\r\n4. The Complainant also owns numerous domain names used in its business that include the NOVARTIS trademark, including one in Russia, namely <novartis.ru> that resolves to its Russian website at http:\/\/novartis.ru\/. \r\n\r\n5. The disputed domain name, registered on 25 February 2021 is identical or confusingly similar to the NOVARTIS trademark.\r\n\r\n6. That is so because it incorporates the Complainant’s well-known, distinctive trademark NOVARTIS in its entirety in combination with the generic term “verify”, separated by the symbol \"-\" none of which negates the confusing similarity with the trademark.\r\n\r\n7. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as it has no relationship with the Complainant and the Complainant has never granted the Respondent any rights to use the NOVARTIS trademark in any form, including in the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n8. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and nor does it have a legitimate interest in the domain name on any other ground. \r\n\r\n9. Google search results all point to the Complainant and its business activities. Thus, the Respondent could easily have discovered before registering the disputed domain name that the Complainant had been using its NOVARTIS trademarks in Russia, where the Respondent resides.\r\n\r\n10. In any event, the Respondent is named “Victor Iliyushkin”, a name which is not connected to the Complainant nor to the term NOVARTIS in any form. The Respondent is therefore not commonly known by the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n11. The disputed domain name resolves to an active website displaying information copied from an official website of the Complainant’s subsidiary company at www.sandoz.com.\r\n\r\n12. The Respondent's website uses the Novartis logo and the term “Novartis-bio” as trademark in a prominent position. In the upper part of the Website, there is a sector of “product validation”, where Internet users can enter a “security code” to “verify” a Novartis product. Such function could be used for phishing. The fact that such sector does not exist on the original official website of Sandoz further adds up to the probability of phishing.\r\n\r\n13. Thus, the intention of the Respondent was to trade on the Complainant’s worldwide renown and to confuse Internet users as to the source or sponsorship. Such impersonation of the Complainant’s official website is blatant evidence of bad faith use and can never be considered as legitimate use or bona fide offering of goods\/services.\r\n\r\n14. The disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. It was registered in bad faith because most of the Complainant’s NOVARTIS trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name and the Respondent has never been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name. It is thus clear that the disputed domain name is a deliberate and calculated attempt to benefit improperly from the Complainant’s rights and reputation. \r\n\r\n15.The Respondent very likely knew about the Complainant and its trademark when it registered the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n16. The Complainant’s trademark NOVARTIS is a distinctive, well-known trademark worldwide and in Russia where the Respondent resides.\r\n\r\n17. The Respondent has failed in presenting a credible evidence-backed rationale for registering the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n18.Therefore, the disputed domain name should be deemed as having been registered in bad faith.\r\n\r\n19. The disputed domain name was also used in bad faith because it resolved to a website copied from another official website of the Complainant, www.sandoz.com. Sandoz is a division of the Complainant. In the upper part of the Respondent's website, there is a sector of “product validation”, where Internet users can enter a “security code” to “verify” a Novartis product. Therefore, it appears that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant and lead Internet users to believe that the Website is connected or operated by the Complainant. Moreover, requiring a “security code” is very likely an attempt to collect data of Internet users and possibly be used to carry out other malicious schemes. The disputed domain name has active MX records which means that it could be used to send out emails. According to such parameter, the risk of phishing is very high.\r\n\r\n20. The circumstances of the present case, as described, therefore show that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name primarily with the intention of attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its potential website or other online locations, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such website or location, or of a product or service on such website or location. \r\n\r\n21. The Respondent has also been using a privacy shield to conceal its identity.\r\n\r\n22. All of these circumstances show that the Respondent’s conduct is in bad faith within the meaning of Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not file a Response in this proceeding.",
    "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": [
        "The Hon. Neil Brown, QC"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-05-29 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of the well-known trademark NOVARTIS registered as both a word and device mark in several classes worldwide. The Complainant has adduced evidence of those registrations which the Panel accepts, including registrations at the Federal Service for Intellectual Property of the Russian Federation where its trademarks include: \r\n\r\nTrademark: NOVARTIS (combined)\r\nReg. no: 534451\r\nPriority: 21 January 2013\r\n\r\nTrademark: NOVARTIS (combined)\r\nReg. no: 526567\r\nPriority: 6 August 2013\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "VERIFY-NOVARTIS.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}