{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102813",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-12-12 13:01:34",
    "domain_names": [
        "novartisformulary.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Novartis AG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "BRANDIT GmbH",
    "respondent": [
        "xi xuan yong"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a long-established global healthcare company based in Switzerland which operates in 155 countries and, among other things, manufactures drugs that include clozapine (Clozail), diclofenac (Voltaren), carbamazepine (Tegretol) and valsartan (Diovan). Its products reached around 800 million people globally in 2018. The Complainant also states that its workforce numbers some 125,000 comprised of some 145 nationalities. Its international trade mark 663765 is registered in China.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant avers that its business language is English. It also states that it has a “strong presence” in China and has a local corporate website there. This site is in Chinese.\r\n\r\n\r\nNo details of the Respondent were visible to the Complainant from the Whois information publicly available for the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe CAC Case Administrator requested the registrar of the disputed domain name, XinNet.com, to provide the registrant’s identity during the Registrar Verification step in this proceeding. The registrar revealed that the name registered for the registrant is Xi Xuan Yong and stated that the registration agreement is in Chinese.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe registrar provided the Respondent’s contact details as well as its own in Chinese. \r\n\r\n\r\nThese Respondent’s contact details included a (mobile) telephone number, a postal address in Beijing and an email address (hosted by a Chinese provider). However, as is common knowledge in international business, Beijing’s postal code range commences with the digits 10, whereas the postal code given for the Respondent via the registrar, 331400, is in Xiajiang County, Ji'an, Jiangxi province – i.e. in a completely different part of China.\r\n\r\n\r\nNo response was received from the Respondent to the Case Administrator’s communications in respect of the present proceeding, sent by e-mail and by post. These were composed in English, in line with the Complaint.\r\n\r\n\r\nFor its part, the Complainant’s authorized representative sought to contact the Respondent through the Chinese registrar, again in English, but was met with a system error message to online forms and no response to emails.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nThe documentation submitted by the Complainant reveals no attempt by it to communicate with either the Respondent or the registrar of the disputed domain name in Chinese.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant used a commonly available online languages translator to determine from the content of the website employing the disputed domain name that it linked to a gambling site. \r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant provided screenshots showing that the website employing the disputed domain name -- which is at the time of preparing the present Decision the Panel, in exercise of its general powers, observes is now no longer operational -- contained limited translations into English of some of its internal site links, namely, for “technical support”, “service experience” and “recharge method” as well as the translation into English of “Copyright Reserved”.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant adduced a listing of 53 reverse Whois lookup results for domain names registered under the Respondent’s email address as confirmed during the Registrar Verification. The status of the list is date-stamped as 17 December 2019. The latest registrations in this listing were seven made on one day, 12 December 2019. A further three had been made the previous day. Among the domain names registered on those two days were the name of an association in France that supports small and medium sized enterprises and of an Indian software outsourcing company, as well as such names as the name of a book of a German philosopher and an area of legal practice in a US state. Earlier ones include the full name of a US construction company, a reformulation including the elements of the name of a major English-speaking social media platform, and a word in German connoting heart disease. All of the domain names listed in this item of evidence were created in 2019. The only ICANN registrar listed which is Chinese is based in Hong Kong. The others are nearly all US-based.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings pending or decided which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\n\r\nI. LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asked the Panel to rule that the language of the proceeding should be changed from Chinese to English, invoking the following arguments:\r\n\r\n\r\n- Use of English terms on the website employing the disputed domain name;\r\n- The Respondent's registration of domain names containing English terms;\r\n- The disputed domain name's inclusion of the Complainant’s trademark NOVARTIS in its entirety combined with a generic term “formulary”, which is closely related to the Complainant’s business activities in the context that the terms are used together;\r\n- The Complainant's being a global company whose business language is English;\r\n- The main website operated by the Complainant is in English.\r\n\r\n\r\nThus, the Respondent obviously understands English. To avoid any potential unfairness or unwarranted delay in ordering the Complainant to translate the Complaint, the Complainant requests that the proceeding language should be in English.\r\n\r\nII. LEGAL GROUNDS\r\n\r\nA. THE DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <novartisformulary.com> incorporates the Complainant’s well-known, distinctive trademark NOVARTIS in its entirety combined with a generic term “formulary”, which is closely related to the Complainant’s business activities. The term “NOVARTIS” being distinctively recognizable in the disputed domain name, it is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. The addition of the gTLD “.com” does not add any distinctiveness to the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nB. RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN RESPECT OF THE DOMAIN NAME\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has never granted the Respondent any right to use the NOVARTIS trademark, nor is the Respondent affiliated to the Complainant in any way.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has not found that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it has an interest over it or the major part of it. When entering the terms “Novartis” and “formulary” in the Google and Baidu (the leading search engine in China) search engines, the search results all point to the Complainant and its business activities. A similar search before registering the disputed domain name would have revealed the same to the Respondent.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name resolved to an active website displaying gambling information.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent deliberately chose to use the Complainant's well-known, distinctive trademark NOVARTIS in the disputed domain name in order to confuse internet users and attract them by benefitting from the Complainant’s global renown.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent therefore has not been using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has hence no right nor legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n\r\nC. THE DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\ni. THE DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe registration of the Complainant’s trademarks predates the registration of the disputed domain name and the Respondent was not authorized by the Complainant to register it.\r\n\r\nDue to the Complainant's strong presence in China and the background introduced above, it is inconceivable that registration of the combination of the well-known, distinctive trademark NOVARTIS and the generic term “formulary” in the disputed domain name was not a deliberate and calculated attempt to improperly benefit from the Complainant’s rights.\r\n\r\nii. THE DOMAIN NAME IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name has been actively used in conjunction with a website displaying gambling information and linking to a gambling website. Taking into account the Complainant's renown, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other location 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 other location or of a product or service.\r\n\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has sought to contact the Respondent to induce the Respondent to cease this conduct, to no avail, from which an inference of bad faith may, in addition, be drawn, as previous Panels have found. The Respondent moreover sought to conceal its identity in its registration details.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\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 that 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 not satisfied that all procedural requirements under the UDRP were met by the Complainant in this case as concerns the language of the proceeding, as explained under the Principal Reasons for the Decision below. \r\n\r\n\r\nHowever, on a balance of the factors in the circumstances of the case related to the Respondent, the Panel considers that it would nevertheless be inappropriate not to provide a Decision, again as explained below.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Kevin J. Madders"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2020-02-07 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has to the Panel's satisfaction documented its international trade mark \"NOVARTIS\" No. 663765 in Nice Classification classes 5, 9, 10 and several other classes and has further produced an extensive listing of this brand from the World Intellectual Property Organization's Global Brand Database as well as Whois records for its novartis.com and novartis.net domain name registrations, together with indications of hosting and website use.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered the disputed domain name <novartisformulary.com> on 21 October 2019.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "NOVARTISFORMULARY.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}