{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104655",
    "time_of_filling": "2022-06-17 09:16:39",
    "domain_names": [
        "corporacionnovartis.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Novartis AG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "BRANDIT GmbH",
    "respondent": [
        "NOVARTIS CORP WEBSITE"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nIt results from the Complainant’s undisputed allegations that it belongs to one of the biggest global pharmaceutical and healthcare groups, providing solutions to address the evolving needs of patients worldwide by developing and delivering innovative medical treatments and drugs. Its products are manufactured and sold in many regions worldwide including in Peru. The Complainant has an active presence in Peru where the Respondent is located, it owns subsidiary in Lima (Peru) and has been actively involved in development of innovative drugs for the local market.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further contends its trademark NOVARTIS be distinctive and well-known all around the world. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant registered many domain names containing the term “NOVARTIS” or in combination with other terms, for example <novartis.com> (created on April 2, 1996) and <novartispharma.com> (created on October 27, 1999). The Complainant uses these domain names to connect to a website through which it informs about its NOVARTIS mark with related products and services.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <corporacionnovartis.com> was created on April 28, 2022 and resolves to an inactive webpage.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent on May 6, 2022, requesting the transfer of the disputed domain name. The Respondent did not reply to it.",
    "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.",
    "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\nParagraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that “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\nHowever, as noted by previous UDRP panels, paragraph 11 of the Rules must be applied in accordance with the overriding requirements of paragraphs 10(b) and 10(c) of the Rules that the parties are treated equally, that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case and that the proceeding takes place with due expedition, see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”) at point 4.5.1. Accordingly, account should be taken of the risk that a strict and unbending application of paragraph 11 of the Rules may result in delay, and considerable and unnecessary expenses of translating documents.\r\n\r\nThe Center notified both parties of the potential language issue, inviting the Complainant to 1) either translate the complaint in Spanish;  or 2) submit a supported request for English to be the language of the administrative proceedings.\r\n\r\nOn September 22, 2020, the Complainant submitted an Amended Complaint requesting that English be the language of the proceedings. \r\n\r\nIn the light of the above, the Center provided the Respondent in both English and Spanish with the Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding.\r\n\r\nIn deciding whether to allow the proceedings to be conducted in a language other than the language of the Registration Agreement, the Panel must have regard to all “the relevant circumstances”. The factors that the Panel should take into consideration include whether the Respondent is able to understand in the language in which the Complaint has been made and would suffer no real prejudice, and whether the expenses of requiring translation and the delay in the proceedings can be avoided without at the same time causing injustice to the parties (see e.g. Carrefour SA v. Matias Barro Mares WIPO Case No. D2020-3088; Volkswagen AG v. Nowack Auto und Sport - Oliver Nowack, WIPO Case No. D2015-0070; SWX Swiss Exchange v. SWX Financial LTD, WIPO Case No. D2008-0400).\r\n\r\nIn the case at issue, this Panel considers that conducting the proceedings in English would not be disadvantageous to the Respondent, since it results from the Complainant’s undisputed allegations that the Respondent has demonstrated an ability to understand English, since the English terms “corp” – an abbreviation of the term “corporation” – and “website” are incorporated in the Respondent’s name (i.e. NOVARTIS CORP WEBSITE) and email address (i.e. novartiscorpwebsite@outlook.es).  Moreover, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name under the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”. By choosing such very popular gTLD extension, the Respondent has aimed at targeting a global and broad audience of Internet users rather than Spanish speakers only. The Panel is therefore prepared to infer that the Respondent is able to understand English. \r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Panel finds that substantial additional expense and delay would likely be incurred if the Complaint had to be translated into Spanish. The Panel is of the view that the language requirement should not cause any undue burden on the parties or undue delay.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Panel notes that the Respondent did not object to the Complaint being in English, nor to the request made that the proceedings be conducted in English.  The Respondent was given a fair opportunity to present his case, to raise objections as to the request for English to be the language of proceedings or to inform the Center on his language preference.  He has however chosen not to comment on any of these issues, (e.g. Carrefour SA v. Matias Barro Mares WIPO Case No. D2020-3088; Volkswagen AG v. Nowack Auto und Sport - Oliver Nowack, WIPO Case No. D2015-0070; Volkswagen AG v. Song Hai Tao, WIPO Case No. D2015-0006).\r\n\r\nTaking all these circumstances into account, this Panel finds that it is appropriate to exercise its discretion, according to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules and allow the proceedings to be conducted in English.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Dr. Federica Togo"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-10-27 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the registered owner of several trademark registrations for NOVARTIS, e.g. International trademark no. 663765 “NOVARTIS”, registered on July 1, 1996 and designating several countries worldwide; Peruvian trademark no. P00278838 “NOVARTIS”, registered on May 8, 2019.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "CORPORACIONNOVARTIS.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}