{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104073",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-10-11 10:04:28",
    "domain_names": [
        "PatientNovartisOncology.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Novartis AG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "BRANDIT GmbH",
    "respondent": [
        "Qian Meng Dan"
    ],
    "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 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 states that it 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 name <PatientNovartisOncology.com> was registered on September 1, 2021, which resolved to a parking page containing pay-per-click (“PPC”) links.\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 name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nPARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the NOVARTIS mark on the basis that the disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s trademark and the addition of the descriptive terms “patient” and “oncology” and generic top-level domain name suffix (“gTLD”) “.com” are insufficient to avoid the finding that the disputed domain name is 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 name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. 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 name has been registered and is 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 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.\r\n\r\nPreliminary Issue: Language of Proceedings\r\n\r\nParagraph 11 of the Rules provides that:\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 name <PatientNovartisOncology.com> is Chinese.\r\nThe Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English for the following reasons:\r\n(i)\ta reverse WHOIS search of the Respondent’s email showed that it has registered numerous domain names composed of English terms;\r\n(ii)\tthe disputed domain name is in English;\r\n(iii)\tthe website to which the disputed domain name resolves to is in English; and\r\n(iv)\tthe proceeding will be put through unnecessary trouble and delay if Chinese were made the language of the proceeding.\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 its selection of the English-language trademark and the domain name 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": "2021-11-24 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of the trademark NOVARTIS, China Trademark Registration No. 42520145 registered on September 7, 2020. \r\nThe Complainant also holds the domain name registrations which contain the NOVARTIS trademark, such as <novartis.com> and <novartis.com.cn> which were registered on April 2, 1996 and August 20, 1999 respectively.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "PATIENTNOVARTISONCOLOGY.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}