{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104232",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-12-10 11:09:05",
    "domain_names": [
        "Metanovartis.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Novartis AG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "BRANDIT GmbH",
    "respondent": [
        "Youngseo  Oh"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Novartis Group is one of the biggest global pharmaceutical and healthcare groups. It provides solutions to address the evolving needs of patients worldwide by developing and delivering innovative medical treatments and drugs. Novartis AG (the “Complainant”), created in 1996 through a merger of two other companies Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz, is the holding company of the Novartis Group. The Complainant’s products are manufactured and sold in many regions worldwide. The Complainant has a strong presence in the Republic of Korea where the Respondent is located. The Complainant has several subsidiaries based in the Republic of Korea . In 2019, Novartis Korea has reached a sales volume of 525.7 billion KRW by selling 122 products and ranked number 3 among the top pharma companies in the Republic of Korea.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on October 31, 2021.\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\ni) The Complainant has rights in 'NOVARTIS' mark (reg. no. 0389597, registered on January 5, 1998; reg. no. 1349878, registered on April 17, 2019) through its registrations of the mark with the KIPO. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's NOVARTIS mark.\r\n\r\nii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name: the Respondent does not have any previous relationships with the Complainant, nor has the Complainant ever granted the Respondent with any rights to use the NOVARTIS trademark in any forms, including the disputed domain name; the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; the Respondent registered the disputed domain name for cyber-squatting purpose, without legitimate interest and did not intend to use it for any bona fide offering of goods or services; and the disputed domain name resolved to the Registrar’s parked page. \r\n\r\niii) The Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith: the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of the Complainant's rights in the NOVARTIS mark; the disputed domain name resolved to a parked page, and such a passive holding constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name; and the Respondent has also registered other domain names composed in the same pattern, i.e. “meta” + “(well-known brand),” and such pattern of conduct constitutes typical cybersquatting.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\nRespondent did not submit 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": "Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceedings\r\n\r\nThe Panel notes that the Registration Agreement is written in Korean, thereby making the language of the proceedings in Korean. The Complainant has requested that the proceeding should be conducted in English. The Panel has the discretion under UDRP Rule 11(a) to determine the appropriate language of the proceedings taking the particular circumstances of the administrative proceeding into consideration. See Section 4.5, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition; see also Lovehoney Group Limited v yan zhang, CAC 103917 (CAC August 17, 2021) (finding it appropriate to conduct the proceeding in English under Rule 11, despite Japanese being designated as the required language in the registration agreement). \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that (i)reverse WHOIS search of the Respondent’s email showed that it has registered a number of domain names that are composed by English terms, e.g. metagentlemonster.com, metaleagueoflegends.com, metaphammall.com, metarolls-roycemotorcars.com, which demonstrates that the Respondent understands English; (ii)the disputed domain name is composed by the English term “meta” and the Complainant’s name “Novartis”, both are correctly spelt further demonstrating that the Respondent understands English; (iii)the Complainant has sent the Respondent a cease-and-desist letter written in English, and the Respondent replied although in Korean, stating that “I have read the material you sent me carefully” and the content of the response reflected that it fully understood the cease-and-desist letter; (iv)the Complainant is a Swiss-based company, and the Respondent is located in the Republic of Korea. The English language, being commonly used internationally, would be considered as neutral for both parties in the present case; and (v)a translation of the Complaint to Korean would entail significant additional costs for the Complainant and delay in the proceedings.\r\n\r\nPursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds that persuasive argument has been adduced by the Complainant. After considering the circumstance of the present case, in the absence of the Response and no objection to the Complainant's request for the language of proceeding, the Panel decides that the proceeding should be in English.\r\n\r\nThe 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": [
        "Mr. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq."
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-01-08 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, including the Republic of Korea. The trademark registrations with the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) include: trademark 'NOVARTIS' (reg. no. 0389597; registered on January 5, 1998); and trademark 'NOVARTIS' (reg. no: 1349878; registered on April 17, 2019).",
    "decision_domains": {
        "METANOVARTIS.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}