{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104239",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-12-16 10:23:46",
    "domain_names": [
        "Novartis.chat"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Novartis AG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "BRANDIT GmbH",
    "respondent": [
        "Vision Recoveries"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is the holding company of the Novartis Group, one of the biggest global pharmaceutical and healthcare groups, which was established in 1996 through a merger of two other companies Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz. The Complainant’s products are manufactured and sold in many regions worldwide. The Complainant has a strong presence and several subsidiaries and associated companies in Australia, where the Respondent is located. The Complainant is the registered owner of numerous domain names, including <novartis.com> and <novartis.com.au>.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on December 10, 2021 and is used in connection with a website displaying the name \"Vision Recoveries\", which appears to be the Respondent's own business, and the sentence \"NOVARTIS YOU JUST STOLE MY WEBDOMAINS.” \r\n\r\nThe Respondent has registered domain names including the Trademark in the past and was ordered to transfer the respective domain names in a previous UDRP proceeding before the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC Case No. 104102).",
    "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\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to the Trademark as the disputed domain name includes the Trademark in its entirety and as the gTLD \".chat\" does not add any distinctiveness to the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also states that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest with regard to the disputed domain name. The Complainant argues that the parties have never had any previous relationships, nor has the Complainant ever granted the Respondent any rights to use the Trademark in any form, including the disputed domain name. It further contends that the Respondent is neither commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has legitimate interest over the disputed domain name. In addition, the Complainant states that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and not non-commercial or fair. Finally, the Respondent also refers to the previous UDRP proceeding against the Respondent and contends that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the intention to take revenge on the Complainant while still trying to attract traffic to its own business for commercial gain.\r\n\r\nWith regard to bad faith, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. With regard to bad faith registration, it argues that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its Trademark because the Trademark is well-known (which already has been confirmed in prior UDRP decisions) and because the parties have already been involved in a UDRP proceeding concerning domain names including the Trademark before the registration of the disputed domain name. With regard to bad faith use, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is used in connection with a website advertising the Respondent's own business and to complain about the Complainant. Furthermore, the Complainant points to the fact that the Respondent previously registered a number of domain names in the same pattern and that his behavior was found to be in bad faith by a previous panel.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNo administratively compliant Response has been filed.",
    "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": [
        "Peter Müller"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-01-26 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is inter alia the owner of the Australian trademark registration no. 712454 \"NOVARTIS\", registered on April 24, 1998, for various goods and services in classes 1, 5, 9, 10, 29, 30, 31, and 32 (hereinafter referred to as the \"Trademark\").",
    "decision_domains": {
        "NOVARTIS.CHAT": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}