The Complainant requests that the disputed domain names be transferred to the Complainant. The Respondent in this case has not submitted any Response.<\/p>\n
<\/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 names.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met an requests the Panel to order a transfer of the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n
NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED. <\/p>", "rights": "
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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": "
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 names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "
The Complainant requests that the language of this administrative proceeding be English pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(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.<\/p>\n
Paragraph 10 of the UDRP Rules vests a Panel with authority to conduct the proceedings in a manner it considers appropriate while also ensuring both that the parties are treated with equality, and that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case. UDRP panels have found that certain scenarios may warrant proceeding in a language other than that of the registration agreement. Such scenarios were summarized into WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, 4.5.1. In this particular instance, the Complainant tried to request change of languages of proceedings in light of Chinese language Registration Agreement by showing that 1) The dispute domain names resolved to pay-per-click websites with terms in English, such as “Pharmaceutical Companies”, “Novartis Stock”, and “Pharmaceutical Industry”, which demonstrates that the Respondent understands English; 2) The Complainant’s Reverse WHOIS search showed that the Respondent has registered numerous other domain names composed by English terms, such as cpapsupples.com, facebookblueprit.com, etc., which demonstrates that the Respondent understands English; 3) Moreover, a translation of the Complaint to Chinese would entail significant additional costs for the Complainant and delay in the proceedings. Relevant decisions have been cited to support the Complainant’s positions.<\/p>\n
In light of the scenarios and equity, the Panel is of the view that conducting the proceeding in English is unlikely to heavily burden the Respondent, and it is likely that the Respondent can understand the English language based on a preponderance of evidence test. Without further objection from the Respondent on the issue, the Panel will proceed to issue the decision in English.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Carrie Shang"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2023-09-05 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": "
The Novartis Group is one of the biggest global pharmaceutical and healthcare groups. It provides solutions to address the evolving needs of patients worldwide by developing and delivering innovative medical treatments and drugs. The Complainant Novartis AG is the holding company of the Novartis Group. The Complainant’s products are manufactured and sold in many countries worldwide including in China, where the Respondent is allegedly located, a country where it has an active presence through its subsidiaries and associated companies and where it has been playing an active role on the local market and in its society. <\/p>\n
The Complainant owns numerous domain names composed of either its trademark NOVARTIS alone, including <novartis.com> (created on 2 April 1996) and <novartis.us> (created on 19 April 2002) or in combination with other terms, such as <novartispharma.com> (created on 27 October 1999). The Complainant uses these domain names to resolve to its official websites through which it informs Internet users and potential consumers about its NOVARTIS mark and its related products and services. <\/p>\n
The Complainant is the owner of the registered well-known trademark NOVARTIS in numerous jurisdictions all over the world, including in China. The Complainant’s trademark registrations significantly predate the registration of the disputed domain names (May 19, 2023). <\/p>", "decision_domains": { "comnovartis.com": "TRANSFERRED", "bovartis.com": "TRANSFERRED", "nnovartis.com": "TRANSFERRED", "noavrtis.com": "TRANSFERRED", "nocartis.com": "TRANSFERRED", "noovartis.com": "TRANSFERRED", "npvartis.com": "TRANSFERRED", "nvoartis.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }