{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107365", "time_of_filling": "2025-02-28 09:42:54", "domain_names": [ "novartishelthcare.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Novartis AG" ], "complainant_representative": "Abion GmbH", "respondent": [ "Sunil kumar" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

Complainant states that it is the holding company of “one of the biggest global pharmaceutical and healthcare groups,” which in 2023 “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.”<\/p>\n

The Disputed Domain Name was created on January 28, 2025, and is being used in connection with what Complainant describes as a “parking page with ‘pay per click’ (‘PPC’) links” that “clearly refer to the Complainant and its business activities, such as ‘Medical Health’ and ‘Medical Healthcare Insurance’” and “[u]pon clicking these links, Internet users were invited to visit other websites related to ‘Healthcare Provider’, among others.”<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and that relate to the Disputed Domain Name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

Complainant contends, in relevant part, as follows:<\/p>\n

Paragraph 4(a)(i): Complainant states that it has rights in the NOVARTIS Trademark based on the registrations listed in the Complaint, including those cited above; and that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the NOVARTIS Trademark because the Disputed Domain Nameb incorporate the NOVARTIS Trademark in its entirety plus “the relevant term ‘helthcare’,” which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.<\/p>\n

Paragraph 4(a)(ii): Complainant states that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia<\/em>, “Complainant has never granted the Respondent with any rights to use the NOVARTIS® trademark in any form, including in the Disputed Domain Name”; “Complainant has not found that the Respondent is known by the Disputed Domain Name”; “[w]hen searching for any trademarks in the name of the Respondent ‘Sunil kumar’, there are also no results related to the Disputed Domain Name terms to be found”; “PPC pages generate revenues when Internet users click on the links displayed therein”; and Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s attempt to contact Respondent via “the contact form listed on the publicly available WhoIs records” and “a Cease-and-Desist letter to the Registrar, asking the latter to forward the letter to the Registrant.”<\/p>\n

Paragraph 4(a)(iii): Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because, inter alia<\/em>, the NOVARTIS Trademark “is a widely known trademark registered in many countries and the Complainant enjoys a strong online presence”; “Complainant’s trademark registrations… significantly predate the registration of the Disputed Domain Name”; “[i]t is therefore inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the existence of the Complainant when it registered the Disputed Domain Name”; “the structure of the Disputed Domain Name – incorporating the Complainant’s well-known trademark NOVARTIS®, followed by the relevant term ‘helthcare’ (being a misspelled form of the term ‘healthcare’), shows that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name having the Complainant and its NOVARTIS® trademark in mind” and therefore “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”; “the mere registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a widely known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith”; Respondent’s use of a PPC page in connection with the Disputed Domain Name “aims at attracting Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s NOVARTIS trademark as to the sources, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the aforementioned PPC page”; and “active MX records are associated to the Disputed Domain Name,” which creates “a risk that corresponding fraudulent email addresses [may] be used.”<\/p>\n

No administratively compliant response has been filed.<\/p>", "rights": "

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  Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "

 Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shownRespondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "

 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 UDRP).<\/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": [ "Douglas Isenberg" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-04-01 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

Complainant states that it is the owner of “the registered well-known trademark NOVARTIS® in numerous jurisdictions all over the world,” including the following, for which Complainant has provided documentation:<\/p>\n