{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107139",
    "time_of_filling": "2024-12-10 08:54:05",
    "domain_names": [
        "novartismeetingsolutions.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Novartis AG"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Abion GmbH",
    "respondent": [
        "Sinead Best"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">The Complainant is a very prominent Swiss company operating internationally and engaged in the provision of goods and services in the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries and it has been so engaged since 1996.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>It is the registered owner of the aforesaid NOVARTIS trademark. It also registered the &lt;novartis.com&gt; domain name on April 2, 1996 which it uses in its business and particularly for its website at www.novartis.com where it promotes its goods and services under the NOVARTIS trademark. The Complainant has continuously used the NOVARTIS trademark since its registration to designate its goods and services provided under the trademark.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">The NOVARTIS trademark has attracted substantial goodwill and is uniquely associated with the Complainant&rsquo;s goods and services.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">The Respondent registered the <strong>&lt;novartismeetingsolutions.com&gt;<\/strong> domain name on August 6, 2024, (&ldquo;the disputed domain name&rdquo;) but has not used it for any purpose other than to allow or cause it to resolve to an error message and to configure MX servers. The Complainant is concerned that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name which incorporates the NOVARTIS trademark together with the two generic words &ldquo;meeting&rdquo; and &ldquo;solutions&rdquo; as it suggests that it is an official domain name of the Complainant, which it is not, and has the potential to mislead internet users. Accordingly, the Complainant has instituted this proceeding to have the disputed domain name transferred to itself.<\/span><\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>",
    "no_response_filed": "<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">A. COMPLAINANT<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the NOVARTIS trademark. That is so because it embodies, without the consent of the Complainant, the NOVARTIS trademark and the Respondent in registering the domain name has added to the trademark the words &ldquo;meeting&rdquo; and &ldquo;solutions&rdquo; and the generic Top Level Domain &ldquo;.com&rdquo;, none of which can negate a finding of confusing similarity that is otherwise made out, as it is in the present case.<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. That is so because:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">the Respondent is not related in any way to the Complainant and the Complainant does not carry on any business with the Respondent; nor has the Complainant given any licence or authority to the Respondent to use the NOVARTIS trademark or register the disputed domain name;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the UDRP Policy;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">the Respondent could have easily ascertained that the Complainant had trademark rights in the NOVARTIS trademark but either did not do so, or ignored the results and went ahead and registered the disputed domain name;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">the Respondent had no trademark or other intellectual property rights that could justify the registration of the disputed domain name;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">the Respondent has caused or allowed the disputed domain name to resolve to a &ldquo;404 error&rdquo; page;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">the disputed domain name is thus passively held by the Respondent;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for a <em>bona fide<\/em> offering of goods or services;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">the Respondent&rsquo;s conduct shows an intention to suggest that it has an association with the Complainant, thus generating confusion with the Complainant and its trademark; and<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">the Respondent has not responded to cease-and-desist letters sent to it giving it the opportunity to show how it has any right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><br \/><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">The Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">That is so because:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">the Respondent registered the disputed domain name many years after the Complainant acquired its aforesaid rights in the famous NOVARTIS trademark;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">the Respondent has never been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">the Respondent could have easily ascertained that the Complainant had its aforesaid trademark rights and it either did not do so or it ignored the results;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">the registration of the disputed domain name in the terms chosen by the Respondent shows that it intended to generate the notion of there being an association between itself and the Complainant which there is not;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its famous trademark when it, the Respondent, registered the disputed domain name;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">the Respondent has sought to generate confusion with the Complainant within the meaning of paragraph 4 (b)(iv) of the Policy by registering the confusingly similar disputed domain name;<\/span><\/li>\n<li>\n<p>the disputed domain name redirects to a &rdquo;404 error page&rdquo; showing that the Respondent has engaged in passive holding of the disputed domain name which is tantamount to bad faith;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">the NOVARTIS trademark had such a degree of distinctiveness and reputation that it must be concluded that the registration and use of a domain name incorporating the trademark were in bad faith;<\/span><\/li>\n<li>\n<p>the Respondent has not responded to cease-and-desist letters sent to it inviting it to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant voluntarily or to avail itself of the opportunity to show that there was good faith registration and use of the disputed domain name;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">by using a privacy shield, the Respondent has sought to conceal its identity;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">MX records have been established showing the potentiality of the disputed domain name being used for a nefarious purpose;<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">the Respondent may well have engaged in at least one other case of abusive domain name registration; and<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">all of the relevant acts, facts, matters and circumstances revealed by the evidence will show that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">It is therefore submitted that as the Complainant will be able to show all of the elements that it must prove it is entitled to the relief it seeks, namely the transfer of the disputed domain name to itself.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">B. RESPONDENT<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">The Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.<\/span><\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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": "2025-01-06 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p><span style=\"font-size: 12pt;\">The Complainant has established by evidence that it owns several trademarks for NOVARTIS including the following:<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>\n<p>the Swiss trademark for NOVARTIS, No.2P-427370, registered on July 1, 1996;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>the International trademark for NOVARTIS, number 663765, registered on July 1, 1996,<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>together with numerous other trademarks for NOVARTIS registered internationally (collectively &ldquo;the NOVARTIS trademark&rdquo;).<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "novartismeetingsolutions.com": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}