Preliminary Procedural Issue: CONSOLIDATION OF MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS IN A SINGLE PROCEEDING<\/p>\n
The Complainant relates to two disputed domain names which he wishes to have dealt within a single administrative proceeding.<\/p>\n
Paragraph 10(e) of the Rules states that a Panel decides a request by a party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and the Rules. Paragraph 4.11.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”) states that in the case of complaints brought against more than one respondent, consolidation may be allowed where (i) the domain names or the websites to which they resolve are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties.<\/p>\n
The Complainant explains that it is appropriate to consolidate the two disputed domain names disputes as one common proceeding appears to be more efficient and equitable to all parties, providing that the two disputed domain names have:<\/p>\n
- one Registrar;<\/p>\n
- same name servers;<\/p>\n
- same hosting provider;<\/p>\n
And were registered on the same day, i.e. May 2 2024.<\/p>\n
Moreover, the Complaint explains that the websites placed historically or currently on the disputed domain names provided information and\/or advertised the sale of various vehicles, purportedly from the Novartis fleet, and mention PROFECO (i.e, the Procuraduria Federal del Consumador), most likely in an attempt to provide consumers\/internet users with a false sense of security. <\/p>\n
FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
The Complainant is a multinational healthcare company based in Switzerland. Novartis was founded in 1996 and nowadays manufactures several well-known drugs which are commercialized worldwide. Its operations overs most of the important jurisdictions, including the United States and Mexico, countries where it has an active presence through its subsidiaries and associated companies.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <novartismexico.com> is not currently used in connection with any goods or services and resolves to a parking page with commercial links (“pay per click” links). However, prior to the take and down notice sent by the Complainant to hosting provider on 2024, a website allegedly advertising for sale several vehicles, apparently sold by Novartis, was placed on the disputed domain name <novartismexico.com>.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <novartis-satgob.com> resolves to a website in Spanish allegedly in the name of the Mexican Government (Gobierno de México<\/em>) and features claims regarding the sale of a vehicle fleet by Novartis allegedly with approvals from Profeco (Procuraduría Federal del Consumidor<\/em>).<\/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' CONTENTIONS:<\/p>\n Identical or confusingly similar<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant argues that the disputed domain names <novartismexico.com> and <novartis-satgob.com>, which include the Complainant's registered trademarks featuring the distinctive element “NOVARTIS,” are confusingly similar.<\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that the distinctive element “NOVARTIS” is well-known trademark. The disputed domain names incorporate this element entirely within their second-level portions. Furthermore, the Complainant contends that any differences between the disputed domain names and its registered trademarks involve generic or descriptive elements, which do not diminish the overall confusion between the signs.<\/p>\n Finally, according to the Complainant, the presence of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension “.com” in the first-level portion(s) of the disputed domain names is a standard registration requirement and should be disregarded when assessing whether the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant holds rights.<\/p>\n No rights or legitimate interests<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant argues that there is no evidence that the Respondents are commonly known by the disputed domain names or a name corresponding to them. Additionally, the Complainant states that the Respondents have not been authorized to use any of the Complainant’s trademarks, nor to apply for or use any domain name incorporating such trademarks. The Complainant and the Respondents have never had any previous relationships.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the Complainant contends that they contacted the Respondent through a Cease-and-Desist Letter regarding the disputed domain name <novartismexico.com> on 20 May, 2024, and received no response. In their view, this lack of response further demonstrates the Respondents’ lack of rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n Registered and used in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n As for the issue of bad faith registration, the Complainant points out that their trademark registrations significantly predate the registration of the disputed domain names. Given the Complainant's worldwide presence and reputation, particularly in Mexico and North America, and considering that their trademarks are well-known, the Respondents could not have been unaware of the Complainant's rights over the name “NOVARTIS” at the time of registering the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n According to the Complainant, this is particularly evident considering that shortly after their registration, the disputed domain names began resolving to developed websites explicitly referring to the Complainant. These websites allegedly promoted the sale of a vehicle fleet connected to the Complainant.<\/p>\n Regarding bad faith use, the Complainant argues that the Respondent not only registered but also used the disputed domain names to attract Internet users to these websites, creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its trademark(s) for commercial gain. The aim was reportedly to induce internet users to purchase vehicles purportedly offered for sale on the websites.<\/p>\n Furthermore, at the time of filing this complaint, the disputed domain name <novartismexico.com> no longer resolves to the previous website but instead to a Parking Page with “pay per click” links. According to the Complainant, this use of the disputed domain name exemplifies bad faith, as it is motivated by commercial gain through creating confusion with the Complainant’s trademark NOVARTIS.<\/p>\n RESPONDENT'S CONTENTIONS:<\/strong><\/p>\n The Respondents did not respond to the Complaint.<\/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 Respondents 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 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": [
"Hana Císlerová"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2024-07-01 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant owns several trademarks consisting either of the word element “NOVARTIS” alone or where “NOVARTIS” represents the main distinctive feature. Some of the most relevant trademarks are as follows:<\/p>\n Moreover, the Complainant owns an important domain names portfolio containing the wording NOVARTIS, such as:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n\n
\n