<\/p>\n
Novartis AG (the “Complainant”) of Switzerland, was created in 1996 through a merger of two other companies Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz, is the holding company of the Novartis Group, one of the biggest global pharmaceutical and healthcare groups in the world.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Complainant’s products are manufactured and sold in many countries worldwide, including in China, country where it has an active presence through its subsidiaries and associated companies.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The domain name <novartlis.com> (hereinafter referred to as the “disputed domain name”) was registered on 26 September 2023. The Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent on 9 October 2023 informing of the Complainant’s rights regarding the NOVARTIS trademark, to which the Respondent did not reply.<\/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
This is a typosquatting case. The Complainant’s trademark NOVARTIS has been deliberately misspelled by the addition of a second letter “l” after the letter “t” –in the disputed domain name. This is to capitalize on Internet users’ typing errors when looking for information on the Complainant. Previous UDRP Panels have stated in this regard that “minor alterations cannot prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the trademark and the domain name” (see LinkedIn Corporation v. Daphne Reynolds, WIPO Case No. D2015-1679). <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Complainant has not granted the Respondent any rights, nor is the Respondent affiliated to the Complainant or known by the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name reflects the Respondent’s intention to create an association, and a likelihood of confusion. Previous Panels and the WIPO Overview, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”) at section 2.5 says: “a respondent’s use of a domain name will not be considered ‘fair’ if it falsely suggests affiliation with the trademark owner”. <\/em>This cannot be considered a bona fide<\/em> offering of goods or services nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n <\/strong>Novartis group owns and uses the domain name <novartis.com.cn> whom the associated website is especially intended for an audience in China as well as informing on the Novartis group presence and activities in this country where the Respondent is based. The Complainant is very active on social media to promote its mark, products and services (See, Laboratoires M&L v. Zhaoxingming<\/em>, CAC Case No. 102277). By conducting a simple online search regarding the name “novartlis” on popular search engines, the Respondent would have inevitably learnt about the Complainant, its trademark and business (see Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. v. Abayomi Ajileye<\/em>, CAC Case No. 102396). Therefore, the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant and the NOVARTIS trademark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name has been passively held. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows<\/em>, supra<\/em>). The Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent informing of the Complainant’s rights regarding the NOVARTIS trademark, to which the Respondent did not reply. Such behaviour supports a finding of bad faith (see Altarea v. Loretta Zayas, WIPO Case No. D2020-2337). Moreover, active MX records are associated with the disputed domain name. The latter may therefore be used in email addresses. There is therefore a risk of the disputed domain name being used for fraudulent purposes, by impersonating the Complainant.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n RESPONDENT: 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 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 name (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 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": " The implied request as to the language of the proceeding is also granted. The Registration agreement is in Chinese, but the Respondent remained inactive in these proceedings and did not contest Complainant´s implied request to hold the proceeding in English language.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 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": [
"Victoria McEvedy"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2024-02-28 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " Rights<\/p>\n The Complainant relies on its many national and other registered trade marks, including:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 1.The European Union trade mark, for the word mark, NOVARTIS, No. 013393641, registered on 17 March 2015, in classes 9 and 10;<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 2.The International trade mark for the word mark, NOVARTIS, No. 663765, registered on July 1, 1996, in classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, 20, 22, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 40 and 42 and designating 50 countries;<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 3.The Swiss national trade mark, for the word mark, NOVARTIS No. 2P-427370, registered on July 1, 1996, in classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, 20, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 40 and 42;<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 4.The United States trade mark for the word mark, NOVARTIS No. 4986124, registered on June 28, 2016, in classes 5, 9, 10, 41, 42 and 44 and No. 6990442, registered on February 28, 2023, in class 5;<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 5.The Chinese national trade mark for the word mark, NOVARTIS, No. 12128356, registered on July 28, 2014, in class 35 and No. 42520145, registered on September 7, 2020, in class 5.<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Previous UDRP panels have held that the NOVARTIS trademark is well-known (see Novartis AG v. Amartya Sinha, Global Webs Link, Novartis RO<\/em>, WIPO Case No. D2020-3203).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Complainant also owns many domain names composed of its trademark NOVARTIS alone, including <novartis.com> (registered in 1996) or in combination with other terms, such as <novartispharma.com> (registered in 1999). These resolve to its official websites through which it informs Internet users and potential consumers about its NOVARTIS mark and its related products and services. The Complainant also enjoys a strong presence online via its official social media platforms.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"novartlis.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}