{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105459", "time_of_filling": "2023-05-25 09:18:23", "domain_names": [ "novartisloan.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Novartis AG" ], "complainant_representative": "BRANDIT GmbH", "respondent": [ "gowan fiqmc" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

A. Complainant’s Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant’s statements of fact can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n

The Novartis Group is one of the biggest global pharmaceutical and healthcare groups, created in 1996 through a merger of companies Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz.<\/p>\n

The Complainant’s products are manufactured and sold in many regions around the world, including in China, the Respondent’s country of residence and where the Complainant has a strong presence.<\/p>\n

B. Respondent’s Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has failed to serve a Response in this UDRP administrative proceeding, the result of which being that the Complainant’s factual allegations are uncontested.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings in respect of the domain name <novartisloan.com> (‘the disputed domain name’).<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

A. Complainant’s Submissions<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n

I. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant avers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known trade mark NOVARTIS, in so far as the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trade mark in its entirety. The addition of the descriptive term ‘loan’ is insufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark NOVARTIS. Furthermore, the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) suffix (<.com>) is typically disregarded in the assessment of identity or confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP Policy.

<\/p>\n

II. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not carry out any activity for, or has any business with, the Complainant. Furthermore, the Respondent has never been given any rights to use the trade mark NOVARTIS in any form, including in the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

The Complainant also asserts that there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

Lastly, at the time the Complainant became aware of, and when it subsequently filed the Complaint against, the Respondent, the disputed domain name resolved to a website in Thai language, which contained references to ‘Novartis’, including an e-mail address at which to contact the Respondent, namely ‘<admin@novartisloan.com>’. The Complainant claims that such use is neither bona fide nor legitimate non-commercial or fair use.

<\/p>\n

III. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n

Registration<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, owing to the following indicia:<\/p>\n

• <\/span>The trade mark NOVARTIS is well-known worldwide, including in China, and has been in use well before the registration of the disputed domain name;<\/p>\n

• <\/span>A simple search via online trade mark registers or through Google search engine would have revealed the existence of the Complainant and the trade mark NOVARTIS, such that it is impossible to believe that the Respondent did not have the Complainant in mind at the time of registration of the disputed domain name; and<\/p>\n

 • <\/span>Paragraph 3.1.4 of the WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (‘WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0’)) provides that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous trade mark, as it is the case here, by an unaffiliated entity, can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.<\/p>\n

Use <\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant avers that the Respondent has intentionally used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP Policy).<\/p>\n

Additionally, the Complainant advances the following in support of a finding of bad faith: (i) the Respondent has failed to respond to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter; (ii) the Respondent has been using a privacy shield to conceal its identity; and (iii) the MX records of the disputed domain name are configured.<\/p>\n

On these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/p>\n

B. Respondent’s Submissions<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has failed to serve a Response in this UDRP administrative proceeding, the result of which being that the Complainant’s submissions are uncontested.<\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP Policy).<\/span><\/p>", "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 UDRP Policy).<\/p>", "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 UDRP Policy).<\/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.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Gustavo Moser" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-06-29 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant relies upon the following registered trade marks, amongst others:<\/p>\n

• <\/span>Chinese trade mark registration no. 15569053, dated 14 December 2015, for the word mark NOVARTIS, in class 9 the Nice Classification; <\/p>\n

• <\/span>International trade mark registration no. 1349878, dated 29 November 2016, designating, amongst others, China, for the word mark NOVARTIS, in classes 9, 10, 41, 42, 44, and 45; and<\/p>\n

• <\/span>Chinese trade mark registration no. 42520143, dated 7 September 2020, for the word mark NOVARTIS, in class 35 of the Nice Classification.<\/p>\n

(hereinafter, individually or collectively ‘the Complainant’s trade mark’; ‘the Complainant’s trade mark NOVARTIS; or ‘the trade mark NOVARTIS’ interchangeably).<\/p>\n

The Complainant has provided evidence of its ownership of domain names composed of the trade mark NOVARTIS. Of particular note, <novartis.com> (registered in 1996) and <novartispharma.com> (registered in 1999).<\/p>\n

At the time of writing this decision, the disputed domain name <novartisloan.com> does not resolve to an active website (‘the Respondent’s website’).<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "novartisloan.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }