The Complainant states that it is one of the biggest global pharmaceutical and healthcare groups and provides solutions to address the evolving needs of patients worldwide by developing and delivering innovative medical treatments and drugs. <\/p>\n
The Complainant submits that its products are manufactured and sold in many regions worldwide.<\/p>\n
The Complainant underlines that it has a strong presence in the USA and in India, where it has been playing an active role on the local market and in the societies. <\/p>\n
The Complainant points out that its trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Complainant notes that previous UDRP panels have stated that the NOVARTIS trademark is well-known. <\/p>\n
The Complainant submits that it has registered several domain names containing the term “NOVARTIS”, for example, <novartis.com> (registered in 1996) and <novartispharma.com> (registered in 1999).<\/p>\n
The Complainant clarifies that it uses these domain names to connect to a website through which it informs potential customers about its \"NOVARTIS\" trademark and its products and services.<\/p>\n
The Complainant adds that it enjoys a strong presence online via its official social media platforms. <\/p>\n
The Complainant clarifies that the disputed domain name <novartıs.com>, or <xn--novarts-wfb.com> in punycode, is an internationalized domain name, that is a domain name that contains non-Latin characters, such as the non-Latin letter “ı”. <\/p>\n
The Complainant considers that this is a typosquatting case, because the disputed domain name is a misspelled version of the Complainant's trademark, registered in order to capitalize on Internet users’ possible typing or reading errors when looking for information, or to communicate with the Complainant online.<\/p>\n
The Complainant submits that its trademark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Complainant considers that the addition of the top-level domain “.COM” does not add any distinctiveness to the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name should be considered as confusingly similar to the trademark \"NOVARTIS\".<\/p>\n
The Complainant notes that:<\/p>\n
- it has never granted the Respondent any rights to use the NOVARTIS trademark in any form, including the disputed domain name;
- the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name;
- when searching for “novartıs” and “novartıs.com” in the Google search engine, the top search results all pointed to the Complainant and its business activities;<\/p>\n
- when searching for “xn--novarts-wfb.com”and “xn--novarts-wfb” in the Google search engine, the top search results all pointed to the Complainant and its business activities; <\/p>\n
- when searching for the disputed domain name along with the name of the Respondent, there are no returned results showing that the Respondent is known by the disputed domain name; <\/p>\n
- when searching for any trademarks incorporating the disputed domain name terms “novartıs” and “novartıs.com” on online trademark search platforms, the registered trademarks found are those belonging to the Complainant;<\/p>\n
- when searching for any trademarks incorporating the terms “xn--novarts-wfb.com” and “xn--novarts-wfb” on online trademark search platforms, no registered trademarks have been found;<\/p>\n
- when searching for any trademarks in the name of the Respondent, no results related to the disputed domain name have been found; <\/p>\n
- the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page;<\/p>\n
- there is no evidence showing that the Respondent has been using, or preparing to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or has made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name;<\/p>\n
- the use of a misspelled version of the Complainant's trademark in the disputed domain name to benefit from the Complainant’s worldwide renown trademark and to confuse Internet users as to the source of the disputed domain name cannot be considered as a bona fide offering of goods or services nor as legitimate noncommercial or fair use;<\/p>\n
- the Respondent has not responded to a cease-and-desist letter from the Complainant.<\/p>\n
For the above reasons, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Complainant observes that its trademark registrations significantly predate the registration of the disputed domain name and that the Respondent has never been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Complainant underlines that the Complainant's trademark is a widely known trademark registered in many countries, including in India and that the Complainant enjoys a strong online presence.<\/p>\n
The Complainant argues that it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the existence of the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Complainant considers that the use of a misspelled version of the Complainant's trademark reflects the Respondent’s clear intention to create an association, and a subsequent likelihood of confusion, with the Complainant’s trademark in Internet users’ mind.<\/p>\n
The Complainant observes that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page and considers that it is being passively held.<\/p>\n
The Complainant points out that the Respondent, who received a cease-and-desist letter, 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
The Complainant notes that the Respondent is trying to conceal its identity regarding the ownership of the disputed domain name because his name and contact details are covered by a privacy shield in the corresponding publicly available Whois records.<\/p>\n
The Complainant adds that active MX records are associated to the disputed domain name and that this may entail a risk that corresponding fraudulent e-mail addresses are used.<\/p>\n
The Complainant points out that the e-mail address used for the registration of the disputed domain name contains a name different from the Respondent's name and considers that it is possible that the Respondent has provided false Whois details.<\/p>\n
The Complainant considers that the described circumstances demonstrate that the Respondent has registered and has been using the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/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, relying on the arguments summarised above, contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.<\/p>\n
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 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": [ "Michele Antonini" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-01-12 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant is the owner of numerous registrations for the trademark \"NOVARTIS\", including the international trademark No 1349878, registered on November 29, 2016, for goods and services in classes 9, 10, 41, 42, 44 and 45.<\/span>
The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on October 26, 2024.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>",
"decision_domains": {
"xn--novarts-wfb.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}