{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107140", "time_of_filling": "2024-12-09 09:53:51", "domain_names": [ "novartisfarmaceutica.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Novartis AG" ], "complainant_representative": "Abion GmbH", "respondent": [ "juan daniel antonio (farmaceutica novartis)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant declares to be one of the biggest pharmaceutical and healthcare groups worldwide. It provides solutions to address the evolving needs of patients worldwide by developing and delivering innovative medical treatments and drugs. The Complainant, with headquarters in Switzerland, created in 1996 through a merger of two other companies Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz, is the holding company of the Novartis Group. In 2023, Novartis achieved net sales of USD 45.4 billion, and total net income amounted to USD 14.9 billion and employed approximately 76 000 full-time equivalent employees as of December 31, 2023. <\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant has duly proved to be the owner of the registered trademark \"NOVARTIS\" in several classes and in numerous countries all over the world and that these trademark registrations long predate the registration of the disputed domain name which was created only on 4 November 2024. <\/span><\/p>\n

In the Complainant's view, due to extensive use, advertising and revenue associated with its trademarks worldwide, the Complainant enjoys a high degree of renown around the world, including South America and notably Mexico or again in Spain. The Complainant has previously successfully challenged several domain names including the word \"NOVARTIS\" through UDRP processes. <\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant outlines that in the WIPO Case No. D2020-3203 Novartis AG v. Amartya Sinha, Global Webs Link, Novartis RO, the Panel confirmed that \"NOVARTIS\" is a well-known trademark. <\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant has registered a number of domain names under generic Top-Level Domains (\"gTLD\") and country-code Top-Level Domains (\"ccTLD\") containing the term \"NOVARTIS\", for example, <novartis.com> (created on April 2, 1996), <novartis.in> (created on February 15, 2005) and Novartis.us (created on April 19, 2002). The Complainant uses these domain names to connect to a website through which it informs potential customers about its \"NOVARTIS\" mark and its products and services. <\/span><\/p>\n

According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is similar to its \"NOVARTIS\" trademark since the disputed domain name is composed the \"NOVARTIS\" mark along with the generic term “farmaceutica” (Spanish for Pharmaceutical). Moreover, the Complainant indicates that the whois information are false information i.e. registrant “farmaceutica novartis” when the Complainant subsidiary in Mexico is Novartis Farmacéutica SA de CV increasing a case of an attempt to impersonate.<\/p>\n

The Complainant has never granted the Respondent with any rights to use the \"NOVARTIS\" trademark. <\/span><\/p>\n

Furthermore, the Complainant outlines that the disputed domain name <novartisfarmaceutica.com>, via the e-mail function, may have been used to conduct email phishing scheme considering an active MX records associated to the Disputed Domain Name with a risk of existing fraudulent email addresses be used such as “[...]@novartisfarmaceutica.com”.<\/p>\n

The Complainant sent a cease and desist letter in mid-November 2024 and a reminder early December 2024 through the contact form of the Registrar which remains unanswered.<\/p>\n

In the Complainant's view, by using the disputed domain name <novartisfarmaceutica.com> the Respondent has clearly and intentionally passively held the domain and attempted an impersonation of the Complainant<\/p>\n

An issue arose concerning the language of the proceedings as the Registrar mentioned that the language of the registration agreement is Spanish. The Complaint argued that despite the indicated language of the agreement, English language should be the one of proceedings as provided in the Complainant’s Annex 1 (Registration Agreement) and also having regard to all circumstances, and to help ensure fairness, and maintain an inexpensive and expeditious avenue for resolving domain disputes. The Panel note that article 9.4 of the restoration agreement provided by the Complainant indicates that:<\/p>\n

\"9.4. Translation. This DRA was originally written in English. We may translate this Agreement into other languages. In the event of a conflict between a translated version and the English version, the English version will control except where prohibited by applicable law.\"<\/em><\/p>\n

Considering that the Spanish version appears to be a mere translation for easy reference and that the English version should prevail.<\/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": "

The Complainant submits that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it. The Complainant makes a number of legal arguments (referenced below) and also supplies a set of annexes providing evidence of its activities and of the Respondent's use of the disputed domain names. <\/span><\/p>\n

No administratively compliant Response has been filed by either Respondents. It ought to be indicated that the Centre sent of the complaint but nor the advice of delivery thereof was returned to the Czech Arbitration Court. The notice of the Commencement of the administrative proceeding was therefore only sent by e-mail. Yet, the e-mail notice sent to <postmaster@novartisfarmaceutica.com> was returned back undelivered as the e-mail addresses had permanent fatal errors. The e-mail notices were also sent to <lic.danielrivera_@outlook.com>, but the CAC never received any proof of delivery or notification of undelivery. No further e-mail addresses could be found on the disputed sites.<\/p>\n

The Respondents never accessed the online platform.<\/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>\n

The issue of language of the proceedings is summarised in the Factual background part of the decision.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "David-Irving Tayer" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-01-05 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant’s trademark registrations include in particular the following earlier rights for NOVARTIS: <\/span><\/p>\n