{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105123",
    "time_of_filling": "2023-01-11 10:36:35",
    "domain_names": [
        "novatismed.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Novartis AG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "BRANDIT GmbH",
    "respondent": [
        "Xiuzhi Gao"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p>The Complainant, Novartis AG, is the holding company of the Novartis Group, which is one of the biggest global pharmaceutical and healthcare groups in the world. It focuses on developing and delivering innovative medical treatments and drugs. &nbsp;The Complainant&rsquo;s products are manufactured and sold in many regions around the world, including China. The Complainant has numerous offices in China and maintains a strong presence in China.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant states that it owns multiple domain names, consisting, inter alia, the NOVARTIS mark, such as &lt;novartis.com&gt; (created on April 2, 1996), &lt;novartispharma.com&gt; (created on October 27, 1999) and &lt;novartis.us&gt; (created on April 19, 2002).<\/p>\n<p>The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on May 2, 2022 and resolves to an active page which has its name as &ldquo;Novatis&rdquo; displayed in a prominent position and appears to offer pharmaceutical goods and services.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant states that it sent the Respondent a cease-and-desist letter on December 14, 2022, as well as a reminder on January 14, 2022. However, to date, the Respondent has not responded.<\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>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": "<p>NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the NOVARTIS mark on the basis that the disputed domain name which consists of a typo of the Complainant&rsquo;s mark by and adds a generic suffix which are insufficient to avoid the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its NOVARTIS mark.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant also argues that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not acquired any rights in a trademark or trade name corresponding to the disputed domain name. In addition, the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant nor did the Complainant license or authorize the Respondent to use the NOVARTIS mark.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant further asserts that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith as the Respondent knew of the Complainant&rsquo;s NOVARTIS mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and registered the domain with the intent to target the trademark. The Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its mark.<\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>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).<\/p>",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "<p>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).<\/p>",
    "bad_faith": "<p>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).<\/p>",
    "procedural_factors": "<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>Preliminary Issue: Language of Proceedings<\/p>\n<p>Paragraph 11 of the Rules provides that:<\/p>\n<p>&ldquo;(a) 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.&rdquo;<\/p>\n<p>The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English for the following reasons:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>neither the Complainant nor its representatives understand Chinese;<\/li>\n<li>the disputed domain name is in Latin characters and include the English term, &ldquo;med&rdquo;, a common abbreviation of &lsquo;medical&rsquo; or &lsquo;medicine&rsquo;;<\/li>\n<li>the disputed domain name resolves to an active page in the English language;<\/li>\n<li>requiring the Complainant to translate the Complaint would incur additional costs and cause unnecessary delays.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.<\/p>\n<p>The Panel cites the following with approval: &ldquo;Thus, the general rule is that the parties may agree on the language of the administrative proceeding.&nbsp; In the absence of this agreement, the language of the Registration Agreement shall dictate the language of the proceeding. However, the Panel has the discretion to decide otherwise having regard to the circumstances of the case. The Panel&rsquo;s discretion must be exercised judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties taking into consideration matters such as command of the language, time and costs. It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her abilities to articulate the arguments for the case.&rdquo; (See Groupe Auchan v. xmxzl, WIPO Case No. DCC2006‑0004).<\/p>\n<p>Having considered the above factors, the Panel determines that English be the language of the proceeding. The Panel agrees that the Respondent appear to be familiar with the English language, taking into account the Respondent&rsquo;s selection of the English-language trademark and the domain name in dispute. In the absence of an objection by the Respondent, the Panel does not find it procedurally efficient to have the Complainant translate the Complaint and evidence into Chinese.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Jonathan Agmon"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-03-08 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademarks worldwide, including but not limited to the following:<\/p>\n<p>- International Trademark Registration No. 666218 for NOVARTIS, registered on October 31, 1996;<\/p>\n<p>- International Trademark Registration No. 663765 for NOVARTIS, registered on July 1, 1996;<\/p>\n<p>- International Trademark Registration No. 1349878 for NOVARTIS, registered on November 29, 2016.<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "novatismed.com": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}