{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105119", "time_of_filling": "2023-01-10 09:16:54", "domain_names": [ "novartis-corp.com" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Novartis AG" ], "complainant_representative": "BRANDIT GmbH", "respondent": [ "Jon Shinn" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is a multinational healthcare company based in Switzerland. Founded in 1996 and nowadays manufactures several well-known drugs which are commercialized worldwide. Its operations overs most of the important jurisdictions, including the US market. <\/span><\/p>\n

No information is known about the Respondent who registered the disputed domain name <novartis-corp.com> on 27 October 2022. The disputed domain name is not currently used in connection with any goods or services and resolves to a web page indicating “www.novartis.com refused to connect”.<\/span><\/p>\n

In view of the above-mentioned, on 4 November 2022, the Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent, via the Registrar’s online contact form, and two subsequent reminder on 15 November 2022. The Complainant has not received any response.<\/span><\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

COMPLAINANT' CONTENTIONS:<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

Identical or confusingly similar<\/span><\/em><\/strong> <\/span><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <novartis-corp.com> and the Complainant's registered trademark NOVARTIS are confusingly similar. <\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant argues that its trademark is fully contained within the disputed domain name and points out that the elements in which the signs vary, are descriptive and thus do not alter the overall confusion between the signs. <\/span><\/p>\n

No rights or legitimate interests<\/span><\/strong> <\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant argues that there is no evidence at all that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name, nor that the Respondent is making a bona fide offering of goods or services. Moreover, the Complainant states that the Respondent has not been licensed or otherwise authorized to use any of the Complainant’s trademarks nor to apply for or use any domain name incorporating such trade marks.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

Registered and used in bad faith<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

As far as bad faith registration is concerned, the Complainant points out that by incorporating the abbreviation “corp.” in the disputed domain name, the Respondent makes clear reference to the Complainant itself. Considering this situation and the fact that the Complainant’s trademark is well known mark, The Complainant concludes that the Respondents could not be unaware of the Complainant rights over the name NOVARTIS at the time of the disputed domain name registration.<\/span><\/p>\n

Finally, the website at the disputed domain name is currently inactive and there is no evidence of it having ever been associated with any goods or services. The Complainant underlines that, although the domain name is not being actively used by the Respondent, passive holding may amount to bad faith use under certain circumstances, as in this case.<\/span><\/p>\n

RESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS:<\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent did not respond to the Complaint.<\/span><\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/span><\/p>", "bad_faith": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name have been registered in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/span><\/p>", "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.<\/span><\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Hana Císlerová" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-02-11 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant owns several trademarks consisting either of the word element “NOVARTIS” alone or where “NOVARTIS” represents the main distinctive feature.
<\/span><\/p>\n

Some of the most relevant trademarks are as follows:<\/span><\/p>\n