The Complainant is a prominent Swiss company engaged in the provision of pharmaceuticals and related goods and services. It has acquired the aforesaid trademark rights for NOVARTIS which it uses in its business. It has come to the notice of the Complainant that on January 17, 2024, the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name which does not resolve to any active content but to an inactive website. The Complainant maintains that the domain name infringes its trademark, is deceptive, disrupts the Complainant's business and has been registered and used in bad faith. It has therefore brought this proceeding under the UDRP and seeks the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name from the Respondent to itself.<\/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": "
A. COMPLAINANT<\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant made the following contentions.<\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant is a Swiss company that is part of the Novartis Group, which is one of the biggest global pharmaceutical and healthcare groups in the world. As such, it manufactures and sells pharmaceuticals and provides related goods and services world-wide.<\/p>\n The Complainant provides its goods and services pursuant to numerous registered trademarks for NOVARTIS. In particular, it has registered trademark rights in the trademark for NOVARTIS registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), Registration Number 2336960, registered on April 4, 2000 and numerous other trademarks for NOVARTIS and derivatives registered nationally and internationally (collectively “the Novartis trademark”).<\/p>\n The vast majority of the Complainant’s NOVARTIS trademark registrations significantly predate the registration of the Disputed Domain Name, which was on January 17, 2024.<\/p>\n Moreover, previous UDRP panels have found that the NOVARTIS trademark is well-known.<\/p>\n In addition to its NOVARTIS trademark, the Complainant has registered numerous domain names consisting of \"novartis\" alone, such as <novartis.com>, which it registered on 2 April 1996 and <novartis.us> which it registered on 19 April 2002, and in combination with other terms, such as <novartispharma.com> which it registered on 27 October 1999 and which it has used in its business and in particular for official websites relating to the provision of its goods and services.<\/p>\n The Respondent registered the domain name <novartisfrance-pharma.com> (“the disputed domain name”) on January 17, 2024.<\/p>\n The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s well-known NOVARTIS trademark in its entirety, to which has been added the geographical term “france”, a hyphen, the term “pharma” and the generic Top Level Domain “.com”.<\/p>\n As it contains the entirety of the NOVARTIS trademark and as the aforesaid additions cannot negate a finding of confusing similarity that is otherwise present, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the NOVARTIS trademark. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>\n That is so because:<\/p>\n - the Complainant and the Respondent have never had any previous relationship with each other;<\/p>\n - the Complainant has not granted the Respondent any rights to use the NOVARTIS trademark, either in the disputed domain name or by any other means;<\/p>\n - the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; that is so because, when searching for the disputed domain name term “novartisfrance-pharma” in the Google search engine, all top returned results point to the Complainant. Moreover, when searching for the disputed domain name terms “novartisfrance-pharma” in connection with the Respondent’s name, “Edgard Monsia”, there were no returned results;<\/p>\n - when searching for any trademarks incorporating the disputed domain name terms “novartisfrance-pharma.com” on online trademark search platforms, no registered trademarks were found. Moreover, when searching for any trademarks registered in the name of the Respondent, namely “Edgard Monsia” incorporating the main part of the disputed domain name “Novartis”, there are no returned results;<\/p>\n <\/p>\n - had the Respondent made proper inquiries, it would have discovered that the NOVARTIS trademark is owned by the Complainant and that the Complainant has used the trademark for its business activities. Despite this, the Respondent still chose to register the disputed domain name;<\/p>\n - the disputed domain name does not resolve to any active content, but resolves only to the Registrar’s parking page. Therefore, the disputed domain name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;<\/p>\n - when the Complainant discovered the registration of the disputed domain name and sent a Cease-and-Desist letter to the Respondent on January 31, 2024, a reply came from Elite Corporation (elitecorporation292@gmail.com) stating “Good morning! I acknowledge receipt of your message. the message as received was forwarded to the domain owner. The domain name itself is not used and will not be used, the owner confirmed to me. I will at the same time leave a message to the host with a view to deleting the said domain in order to be sure. Sincerely”;<\/p>\n - although the Respondent was given the opportunity to show how it had rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, it failed to do so, and merely had resort to the statement that “the domain name is (was) not currently used and will not be used in the future”;<\/p>\n - the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant that cannot constitute fair use under the UDRP policy;<\/p>\n - the evidence will show that for the foregoing reasons and in all the circumstances the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n That is so because:<\/p>\n - the registrations of the Complainant’s NOVARTIS trademarks predate the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name;<\/p>\n - the Respondent has never been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name;<\/p>\n - the wide recognition of the Complainant and its trademark, its substantial presence and the presence of its trademark and its long-standing use and promotion, as well as the Complainant’s active presence on social media and the prior UDRP decisions acknowledgement of the fame of the NOVARTIS trademark, all indicate that the Respondent had actual notice of the Complainant and its trademark prior to its registration of the disputed domain name;<\/p>\n - the structure of the disputed domain name followed by the geographical term “france”, a country where the Complainant has an established business presence, and the term “pharma”, which is relevant to the Complainant’s business field, the Complainant being a globally renowned pharmaceutical company, shows that the Respondent registered the dispute domain name having the Complainant and its NOVARTIS trademark in mind;<\/p>\n - the registration of the disputed domain name shows the Respondent’s clear intention to create an association, and a subsequent likelihood of confusion, with the Complainant’s trademark in Internet users’ minds. Indeed, by reading the disputed domain name, Internet users may believe that it is directly connected to or authorized by the Complainant;<\/p>\n - accordingly, the disputed domain name should be deemed as registered in bad faith.<\/p>\n That is so because:<\/p>\n - the Respondent has used the disputed domain name with the intention of creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s NOVARTIS trademark within the meaning of paragraph 4 (b)(iv) of the Policy;<\/p>\n - the structure of the disputed domain name reflects the Respondent’s intention to create an association and subsequent likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its NOVARTIS trademark;<\/p>\n - the disputed domain name does not resolve to any active content but to a Registrar’s parking page;<\/p>\n - the disputed domain name is passively held within the generally accepted meaning of that expression and having regard to the decision in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003);<\/p>\n - the NOVARTIS trademark is well-known;<\/p>\n - the aforesaid correspondence shows that Complainant contacted the Respondent who had a chance to provide evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use of the disputed domain name but failed to do so;<\/p>\n - all of the relevant circumstances show the disputed domain name’s capacity to be misleadingly seen as connected to or authorized by the Complainant and accordingly there is no good faith use to which the domain name could be put;<\/p>\n - the aforementioned circumstances show that the Respondent has been using the disputed domain name in bad faith. <\/p>\n <\/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 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": [
"Neil Brown"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2024-06-11 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The evidence has established that the Complainant owns a portfolio of registered trademarks for NOVARTIS including the trademark for NOVARTIS registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on April 4, 2000 and numerous other trademarks for NOVARTIS and derivatives registered nationally and internationally (collectively “the Novartis trademark”).<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"novartisfrance-pharma.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}
<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name has been used in bad faith.<\/p>\n<\/ul>\n