{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107565", "time_of_filling": "2025-05-14 10:09:32", "domain_names": [ "novartis-grp.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Novartis AG" ], "complainant_representative": "Abion GmbH", "respondent": [ "Raj soni" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

A. Complainant's Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant with headquarters in Switzerland 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. In 2024, it achieved net sales of USD 50.3 billion, and total net income amounted to USD 11.9 billion and employed approximately 76 000 full-time equivalent employees. Its products are manufactured and sold in many countries worldwide, including in the United States and in India, where it has an active presence.<\/p>\n

It is the owner of the registered well-known trademark “NOVARTIS” in numerous jurisdictions all over the world. It owns domain names composed of either its trademark “NOVARTIS” alone, including <novartis.com> or in combination with other terms, such as <novartispharma.com> and <novartisgroup.com>.<\/p>\n

B. Respondent's Factual Allegations <\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has defaulted in this UDRP administrative proceedings and has consequently made no factual allegations. The Respondent is Raj soni, based at the address of c1 Atlantis, near Shell Petrol Pump, Prahlad Nagar, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, and ZIP\/POST CODE 380015 India. The disputed domain name was registered on April 9, 2025 by the Respondent, as confirmed by the Registrar. At the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to an error page.<\/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": "

A. COMPLAINANT <\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant's contentions can be summarized as follows:<\/p>\n

I. The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that it is the owner of the registered trademark “NOVARTIS” in numerous jurisdictions all over the world and the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademark. It contains the Complainant’s well-known trademark “NOVARTIS” in its entirety, followed by the “grp”, an abbreviation of the term “group”, which directly refers to the Complainant and its business. The Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <novartisgroup.com>. In similar cases <novartismanagement.com> and <novartisgroups.com>, the panelists held that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its “NOVARTIS” trademark. The Complainant also cited WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 to support its contention.<\/p>\n

II. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name<\/strong> <\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name on the grounds: i) the Complainant has never granted the Respondent with any rights to use “NOVARTIS” trademark in any form, including in the disputed domain name; ii) the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name; iii) 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 non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name; iv) the Respondent has been granted an opportunity by C&D letter to present arguments that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, but it has failed to do so.<\/p>\n

III.<\/strong> The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith on the grounds: i) its trademark registrations significantly predate the registration of the disputed domain name. By conducting a simple online search, the Respondent would have inevitably learnt about the Complainant, its trademark and business; ii) as “NOVARTIS” trademark is well known, it is therefore inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the existence of the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name; iii) the disputed domain name, incorporating the Complainant’s “NOVARTIS” trademark with “grp”, reflects its intention to create an association and likelihood of confusion.<\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith on the grounds: i) the mere registration of the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the well-known trademark “NOVARTIS” by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith; ii) it resolved to an error page, which is passive holding. Passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith, taking into account the following circumstances:<\/p>\n