{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108082", "time_of_filling": "2025-10-29 13:56:39", "domain_names": [ "novartistrials.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Novartis AG" ], "complainant_representative": "Abion GmbH", "respondent": [ "Storm Stillman (Curebase)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant belongs to the Novartis Group, 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. The Complainant, Novartis AG, was created in 1996 through a merger of two other companies Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz, and it is the holding company of the Novartis Group.<\/span>

The Complainant has an active presence in the United States, where the Respondent is located, through several associated companies and subsidiaries, such as, among others, Novartis Corporation and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.<\/span>

The Complainant owns numerous domain names including <novartis.com> and <novartisclinicaltrials.com>, and has a very active online presence.<\/span>

The disputed domain name <novartistrials.com> was registered on September 13, 2025.<\/span><\/p>\n

On September 15 and 18, 2025, the disputed domain name resolved to a website inferring a direct association to the Complainant. The Website prominently displayed the NOVARTIS trademark and allegedly offered under the same to find clinical trials.  <\/span><\/p>\n

On September 18, 2025, the Complainant filed a successful web content takedown request before the Registrar and the Hosting provider regarding the disputed domain name. From September 30, 2025, the disputed domain name has not been resolving to an active website. Further, on September 18, 2025, the Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter requesting the immediate cessation of use and transfer of the disputed domain name, to which the Respondent did not reply.<\/span><\/p>\n

On November 12, 2025, the disputed domain name, after having been restored successfully, as it had previously entered the redemption period, was placed under Registrar Lock status and the contact details of the Respondent were confirmed and transmitted by the Registrar to the Center and the Complainant.<\/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 disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark.<\/span>

Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In this regard, the Complainant states that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, that it is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way, that the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent, and that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Trademark or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.<\/span>

<\/p>\n

Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It contends that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its Trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name as the Trademark is well-known and that the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith under para. 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, as it intentionally tried to attract users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source of the website associated to the disputed domain name constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use.<\/p>\n


<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:<\/span><\/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": [ "Stefanie Efstathiou LL.M. mult." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-01-12 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant owns several trademark registrations across various jurisdictions, including the United States of America, where the Respondent is based, inter alia:<\/p>\n