{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105805", "time_of_filling": "2023-09-26 09:43:31", "domain_names": [ "novartisonboarding.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Novartis AG " ], "complainant_representative": "BRANDIT GmbH", "respondent": [ "junqi huan g (huangju nqi)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is a provider of pharmaceutical and healthcare products and is the owner of an international portfolio of trademark registrations for the NOVARTIS mark.<\/p>\n

The Disputed Domain Name <novartisonboarding.com> was registered on June 22, 2023 and was inactive on the date of filing of the Complaint. There is no information available about the Respondent, which has elected to have its identity redacted on the published WhoIs, except for that provides in the Complaint, the Registrar’s WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by the Center for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purposes of this proceeding.<\/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 Name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n

The Complainant claims rights in the NOVARTIS trademark established by its ownership of an international portfolio of registrations described above and extensive use of the mark in its pharmaceutical and healthcare business.<\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the NOVARTIS mark has an international goodwill and reputation, and in 2022, the Complainant’s group achieved net sales from continuing operations of USD $50.5 billion, and total net income amounted to USD $7.0 billion. As of December 31. 2022, the Complainant’s group employed approximately 102 000 full-time equivalent employees and its Annual Reports with detailed information about the group activities can be found on its website at https:\/\/www.novartis.com\/sites\/novartis_com\/files\/novartis-annual-report-2022.pdf<\/a><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that it has active presence in China, where the Respondent is allegedly located according to the publicly available WhoIs records and its NOVARTIS mark has become well known in that jurisdiction and other jurisdictions across the world, through its activities and those of its subsidiaries and associated companies. Furthermore, the Complainant submits that it also enjoys a strong presence online via its official website and social media platforms.<\/p>\n

The Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Name <novartisonboarding.com> is identical or confusingly similar to its NOVARTIS mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety in its second level, followed by the term “onboarding”. It is argued that the NOVARTIS trademark is clearly recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant adds that the 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

The Complainant next alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, within the meaning of the Paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (4)(c) of the Policy, arguing that the Respondent has never had any previous relationship with Complainant, nor has the Complainant ever granted the Respondent any rights to use the NOVARTIS trademark, including in the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant avers that its searches have not found that the Respondent is known by the Disputed Domain Name, and as shown in a screen capture exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, when searching for the terms “Novartis onboarding” and “novartisonboarding.com” in the Google search engine, the vast majority of the returned results point to the Complainant. Moreover, when searching for those terms in the Google search engine in combination with the name of the Respondent’s organization as available in the WhoIs records, and namely ”huangjunqi”, the vast majority of the returned results again point to the Complainant; and furthermore when searching for those terms in the Google search engine in combination with the first and last name of the Respondent as revealed by the Registrar Verification, namely “junqi huan g”, the returned results either point to the Complainant or there are no returned results. Furthermore, when searching for any trademarks incorporating the terms “Novartis onboarding” and “novartisonboarding.com” on trademark search platforms online, no registered trademarks are to be found. Moreover, when searching for any trademarks registered in the name of the Respondent’s organization as stated in the WhoIs record for the Disputed Domain Name, and namely ”huangjunqi”, there are no returned results.<\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the structure of the Disputed Domain Name, which incorporates the NOVARTIS trademark in its entirety in its second level, followed by the term “onboarding”, is clearly referring to the Complainant. Moreover, the additional term “onboarding” present on the second level portion of the Disputed Domain Name is very likely to be a reference to the onboarding process of new staff members, suppliers and alike at Novartis or their subsidiaries.  As shown in a screen capture of the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves, when the Complainant first found out about the Disputed Domain Name, it resolved to a website in Chinese language; and according to an automated translation, purports to be maintained by a manufacturer of wire rolling machine and rebar sleeve products based in Hengshui City. The exhibited screen capture of the website presents several images of steel products and machinery. The Complainant submits that by using the Disputed Domain Name in such manner, the Respondent was attempting to divert traffic to a website unrelated to the Complainant and abuse the Complainant’s goodwill and reputation, and\/or possibly to give a false appearance of rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name by connecting it with a placeholder website. In similar cases, Panels have held that the use of a domain name at issue in these circumstances to direct visitors to a website unconnected with the Complainant does not constitute use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services, nor can it be considered a legitimate use of the disputed domain name. See General Motors LLC v. Jeff Shenk, MediaTrac LLC, WIPO Case No. D2017-1817, and that passively holding a domain name, including with a placeholder or draft website, in and of itself does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. See Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Gabriel Hall, WIPO Case No. D2015-1779.The Complainant submits that at the time of filing of this Complaint, the Disputed Domain Name did not resolve to any active page\/content, as also shown in a screen capture annexed to the Complaint.<\/p>\n

The Complainant argues that therefore, the Disputed Domain Name is not currently being used in connection with bona fide offering of goods or services, i.e., there is no available evidence that the Respondent engages in, or has engaged in any activity or work. Moreover, the Complainant submits that when it found out about the registration of the Disputed Domain Name, it caused a Cease and Desist letter to the sent to the Respondent on July 11, 2023, initiated a contact request via the service provided by the Registrar, and sent a reminder letter via the service provided by the Registrar on August 2, 2023. No response was received from the Respondent.  The Complainant adds that notwithstanding that the Respondent has been granted an opportunity to present some compelling arguments that it has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, it has failed so to do.<\/p>\n

The Complainant next alleges that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, arguing that the Complainant’s trademark registrations for the NOVARTIS mark significantly predate the registration of the Disputed Domain Name, and the Respondent has never been authorized by the Complainant to register the Disputed Domain Name.  The Complainant also enjoys a strong online presence, and by conducting a simple online search for the Disputed Domain Name terms on popular search engines, the Respondent would have inevitably learnt about the Complainant, its trademark and business. Furthermore, the structure of the Disputed Domain Name, incorporating as it does, in its second level the Complainant’s well-known trademark NOVARTIS alongside the relevant term “onboarding” - shows that the Respondent registered it with the Complainant and its NOVARTIS trademark in mind. The Complainant submits that this reflects the Respondent’s clear intention to create an association, and a subsequent likelihood of confusion, with the Complainant’s trademark in Internet users’ mind. Considering that the NOVARTIS trademark is well known and the Complainant is a globally renowned pharmaceutical company, with a strong business presence worldwide, including in China where the Respondent purports to be based, it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the existence of the Complainant when it registered the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>\n

On the contrary, it appears that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant and its business and was most likely intentionally trying to confuse consumers and other Internet users by creating a similarity between the Disputed Domain name and the Complainant. By doing so, the Respondent is seeking to benefit from the Complainant's established reputation.<\/p>\n

The Complainant finally argues that the Disputed Domain Name is being used in bad faith.  The Complainant submits that among the circumstances which are indicative of use in bad faith are those described in Policy Paragraph 4(b)(iv) which reads: “by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.” By reading the Disputed Domain Name, Internet users may believe that it is directly connected to or authorized by the Complainant.<\/p>\n

 Moreover, the exhibited screen capture shows that the Disputed Domain Name has resolved to a website which referred to a manufacturer of wire rolling machine and rebar sleeve products based in Hengshui City, with content that included several images of steel products and machinery.  It therefore appears that the website previously connected to the Disputed Domain Name was an attempt on the side of the Respondent to divert traffic to a website unrelated to the Complainant and abuse its goodwill and reputation, and\/or possibly give a false appearance of rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, both of which are activities that could be characterized as being in bad faith.  In similar circumstances, panels established under the Policy have held that to establish a website by use of a domain name that incorporates a generally recognized and well regarded mark, simply for the sake of catching consumers' attention, then to syphon off their trade by offering unrelated goods via that website, is an activity which can only be characterized as being in bad faith. See LEGO Juris A\/S v. Torsten Kruger WIPO Case No. D2017-2187.<\/p>\n

Moreover, the Complainant submits that at the time of filing of this Complaint, the Disputed Domain Name did not resolve to any active content as shown in an exhibited screen capture and is currently passively held.<\/p>\n

 In the present case, the following circumstances have to be taken into account:<\/p>\n