{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103834",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-05-31 08:47:58",
    "domain_names": [
        "novartisweb.online",
        "novartis-hr.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Novartis AG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "BRANDIT GmbH",
    "respondent": [
        "Godsmak"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is part of the Novartis Group, a global pharmaceutical and healthcare group which was created in 1996 through the merger of two other companies.  It has a presence in India, where the Respondent is located, and both its global website and its local Indian website connect customers to its official local sales and services.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of the trademark NOVARTIS in numerous countries of the world including India.  Such mark has been found to be well-known by a previous panel under the Policy.  The Complainant owns numerous domain names composed of said mark, either alone or in combination with other terms.  Said domain names are used to promote the NOVARTIS mark and related products and services.  The Complainant has a strong online presence including via its official social media platforms.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names were registered on April 21, 2021 and May 6, 2021.  They incorporate the Complainant’s NOVARTIS mark, combined with a generic term “web” or “hr”.  The latter is commonly known as an abbreviation for “human resources”, which is closely related to the Complainant and its business activities.  The addition of the respective gTLDs does not add any distinctiveness.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.  The Complainant has never granted the Respondent any right to use the NOVARTIS mark, the Respondent is not affiliated to the Complainant in any form, and the Complainant has not found the Respondent to be commonly known by the disputed domain names or to have any legitimate interests over them.  The Respondent could have performed a search before registering the disputed domain names which would have disclosed the Complainant’s interest.  According to the Registrar verification, the Respondent is named “Jack M” of the organization “Godsmak”.  These are in no way connected to the Complainant or its NOVARTIS mark.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent deliberately chose to use the Complainant’s well-known, distinctive NOVARTIS mark within the disputed domain names with the likely intention of benefitting from the Complainant’s worldwide renown and to confuse Internet users as to source or sponsorship.  It cannot be considered to be making a bona fide offering of goods or services.\r\n\r\nThe registration of the Complainant’s marks pre-dates the registration of the disputed domain names and the Complainant did not authorize the Respondent to register the disputed domain names.  The combination of the well-known NOVARTIS mark with the terms “web” and “hr” can only be a deliberate and calculated attempt to benefit improperly from the Complainant’s rights.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent very likely knew about the Complainant and its mark, which is distinctive and well-known both worldwide and in India, where the Respondent resides.  The Respondent has failed in presenting a credible evidence-backed rationale for registering the disputed domain names.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names resolved to pay-per-click websites, which constitutes bad faith conduct in terms of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, as confirmed by previous cases.  The Respondent has registered two domain names under gTLDs and five other domain names under the ccTLD “.in” containing the Complainant’s well-known NOVARTIS mark combined with a generic term.  This constitutes a pattern of conduct in terms of paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has tried to reach the Respondent by a cease-and-desist notice sent on April 28, 2021 sent via the online contact form but has received no response from the Respondent. Its non-response allows the Panel to infer bad faith use of the disputed domain names per previous cases under the Policy.",
    "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.",
    "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.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Andrew Lothian"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-07-09 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Among others, the Complainant is the owner of the following registered trademark in respect of the NOVARTIS mark:\r\n\r\n- Indian registered trademark no. 700020 for the word mark NOVARTIS, filed on February 28, 1996, in class 5.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "NOVARTISWEB.ONLINE": "TRANSFERRED",
        "NOVARTIS-HR.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}