{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107309", "time_of_filling": "2025-02-14 09:59:19", "domain_names": [ "uk-novartis.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Novartis AG" ], "complainant_representative": "Abion GmbH", "respondent": [ "Zelda Anderson" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant is one of the biggest global pharmaceutical and healthcare groups. It provides solutions to address the evolving needs of patients worldwide by developing and delivering innovative medical treatments and drugs. Novartis AG (the “Complainant”), created in 1996 through a merger of two other companies Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz, is the holding company of the Novartis Group.<\/p>\n


The Complainant also owns an important domain names portfolio, including the domain name <novartis.com>.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <uk-novartis.com> was registered on January 15, 2025 and resolves to a server page. MX records are configured on the disputed domain name.<\/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<\/b><\/p>\n

A. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR
<\/strong>The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark NOVARTIS. The only difference lies in the addition of the geographical term “uk” and a hyphen to trademark NOVARTIS in the domain name.

It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark NOVARTIS. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and the domain names associated.

Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD “.com” is a standard registration requirement and may be disregarded when assessing the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.

B. RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant has not found that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it has legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, and the Complainant has never granted the Respondent with any rights to use the NOVARTIS trademark.<\/p>\n

 The Complainant equally submits that the Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The disputed domain name resolves to a server page, and MX records are configured on the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

Thus, in accordance with the foregoing, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name.

C. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH
<\/strong>The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its distinctive trademark NOVARTIS. The Complainant’s trademark NOVARTIS is widely known. Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademark NOVARTIS.<\/p>\n

Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation and the fact exposed above, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. Moreover, the Complainant states that the use of the geographical term “uk” in the disputed domain name was most likely done to confuse internet users by creating a similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant.<\/p>\n

 The fact that MX records are linked to the disputed domain name is a further element of the Respondent's bad faith. Finally, the Complainant submits that the Respondent engaged in a pattern of abusive registrations targeting the Complainant, as the Respondent previously appeared in other proceedings raised by the Complainant.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

RESPONDENT
<\/strong>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": [ "Arthur Fouré" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-03-14 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of the numerous trademarks, including:<\/p>\n