The Novartis Group 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”), with headquarters in Switzerland, which was created in 1996 through a merger of two other companies Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz, is the holding company of the Novartis Group. In 2024, The Novartis Group achieved net. sales of USD50.3 billion while total net. income amounted to USD11.9 billion with approximately 76 000 full-time equivalent employees as of December 31, 2024. The Novartis Group publishes their Annual Reports with detailed information about their activities globally every year and these can be found online. <\/p>\n
The Complainant’s products are manufactured and sold in many countries worldwide, including in the United States, where it has an active presence through associated companies and subsidiaries, and where it has been playing an active role on the local markets and societies. The Complainant is the owner of the registered well-known trademark NOVARTIS® which predates the registration of the Disputed Domain Name <NOVARITSBIOPHARMA.COM>, which was registered on June 3, 2025.<\/p>\n
Previous UDRP panels have stated that the NOVARTIS® trademark is well-known (see Novartis AG v. Amartya Sinha, Global Webs Link, Novartis RO, WIPO Case No. D2020-3203). The Complainant owns numerous domain names composed of either its trademark NOVARTIS® alone, including <novartis.com> (created on 2 April 1996) or in combination with other terms, such as <novartispharma.com> (created on 27 October 1999). The Complainant uses these domain names to resolve to its official websites through which it informs Internet users and potential consumers about its NOVARTIS® mark and its related products and services. The Complainant also enjoys a strong presence online via its official social media platforms.<\/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 contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.
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 Complainant has requested that English be determined to be the language of proceedings in this case, arguing that to the best of the Complainant’s knowledge, the language of the Registration Agreement of the Disputed Domain Name is English and has filed the Registrar's Domain Name Terms of Use to illustrate this point and has submitted the complaint in English. <\/p>\n
In accordance with Paragraph 11 of the UDRP Rules, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the language of the proceeding is the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the panel to determine otherwise, exercising its “discretion in the spirit of fairness to both parties, which pursuant to paragraph 10(b) of the Rules have to be treated with equality, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs” (see Carrefour v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1242379769 \/ Le Berre, WIPO Case No. D2018-1552). In such cases, Panels have also found that a language other than that of the Registration Agreement may be used. See Section 4.5, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, see also Lovehoney Group Limited v yan zhang<\/em>, CAC 103917 (CAC August 17, 2021) (finding it appropriate to conduct the proceeding in English under Rule 11, despite Japanese being designated as the required language in the registration agreement).<\/p>\n Considering the fact that the respondent appears to be located in Seattle, Washington, United States, and the telephone number given has an international dial code for the USA, the Panel finds that there is no reason to doubt that the Respondent understands the English language.<\/p>\n Nevertheless, the Panel finds that it would be inequitable and an undue burden on the Complainant to require a translation of the Complaint which would be unjustified under the particular circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that in view of the specific circumstances of this case, and in the absence of a Response, the Panel determines that the language of the proceeding shall be English.<\/p>\n The Panel is therefore 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": [
"Udo Pfleghar B.A. (Melb.)"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-08-25 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of the registered well-known trademark NOVARTIS® in numerous jurisdictions all over the world, including in the United States, such as but not limited to:<\/p>\n\n