Complainant states that it is “the holding company of the Novartis Group,” which is “one of the biggest global pharmaceutical and healthcare groups,” which “provides solutions to address the evolving needs of patients worldwide by developing and delivering innovative medical treatments and drugs.” Complainant further states that it “achieved net sales from continuing operations of USD 50.5 billion, and total net income amounted to USD 7.0 billion and employed approximately 102 000 full-time equivalent employees as of December 31, 2022.”<\/p>\n
The Disputed Domain Name was created on March 28, 2023, and is not being used in connection with an active website.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and that relate to the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Paragraph 4(a)(i): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the NOVARTIS Trademark because the Disputed Domain Name “in its second level portion, incorporates the trademark NOVARTIS in its entirety with the addition of the abbreviation ‘LTD’ (a commonly used abbreviation for ‘Limited’ referring to Limited Liability Company),” “[t]he NOVARTIS trademark is clearly recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name,” and “[t]he presence of the generic Top-Level Domain (‘gTLD’) extension ‘.com’ in the first level portion of the Disputed Domain Name is a standard registration requirement and may be disregarded when assessing whether the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.”<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Paragraph 4(a)(ii): Complainant states that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia<\/em>, “[t]he Complainant and the Respondent have never had any previous relationships, nor has the Complainant ever granted the Respondent any rights to use the NOVARTIS trademark in any form, including in the Disputed Domain Name,” “[t]he Complainant has not found that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or that it has a legitimate interest over the Disputed Domain Name,” “the Disputed Domain Name does not resolve to any active content,” and “[t]here is no evidence showing that the Respondent has been using, or preparing to use, the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or has made a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name.”<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Paragraph 4(a)(iii): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because, inter alia<\/em>, “the registration of the Complainant’s trademarks pre-dates the registration of the Disputed Domain Name and the Respondent has never been authorized by the Complainant to use the NOVARTIS trademark nor to register the Disputed Domain Name,” “Complainant enjoys a strong online presence,” “it is… inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the existence of the Complainant when they registered the Disputed Domain Name,” Respondent did not respond to a cease and desist letter sent by Complainant, “non-use of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding,” and “MX records are associated with the Disputed Domain Name[, so] [i]t is very likely that a corresponding fraudulent email address is used.”<\/p>\n <\/p>\n No administratively compliant response has been filed.<\/p>",
"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 UDRP).<\/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).<\/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).<\/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": [
"Douglas Isenberg"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2023-07-25 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " Complainant states, and provides relevant evidence, that it is the owner of “the registered well-known trademark NOVARTIS in numerous jurisdictions all over the world,” including Swiss No. 672477 (registered on April 28, 2015), Swiss No. 2P-427370 (registered on July 01, 1996), International Reg. No. 1349878 (registered on November 29, 2016), and International Reg. No. 1544148 (registered on June 29, 2020) (the “NOVARTIS Trademark”).<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"novartisltd.com ": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}