{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108188", "time_of_filling": "2025-12-02 10:43:20", "domain_names": [ "novartis1.kids" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Novartis AG " ], "complainant_representative": null, "respondent": [ "xu yao xu yao" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

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

The Complainant, with headquarters in Switzerland, was created in 1996 through a merger of two other companies Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz, and is the holding company of the Novartis Group, which is one of the biggest global pharmaceutical and healthcare groups. In 2024, the Novartis Group achieved net sales of USD 50.3 billion, and total net income amounted to USD 11.9 billion and employed approximately 76000 full time equivalent employees as of December 31, 2024. Its medicines reach 296 million people worldwide, including children.<\/p>\n

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

The Respondent has defaulted in this UDRP administrative proceeding and has consequently made no factual allegations. The Respondent is xu yao xu yao, based at the address of Sichuan cheng du shi jin jiang qu chun xi lu 158 hao, China, Postcode 610000. The disputed domain name was registered on September 30, 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.<\/span><\/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 <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Language of the Proceedings <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complaint is written in English. According to the registrar's verification response, the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. The Complainant submitted a request for English to be the language of this administrative proceeding on the following grounds: i) the fact that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in Latin alphabet shows that the Respondent understands English; ii) the English language being commonly used internationally, it is fair to the Parties that the language be English; iii) a translation of the Complaint into Chinese will entail significant additional costs for the Complainant and delay in the proceedings. <\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant's contentions can be summarized as follows:<\/span><\/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 as mentioned above in the IDENTIFICATION OF RIGHTS, which were registered many years before the creation of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademark. It contains the Complainant’s well-known trademark NOVARTIS in its entirety. The addition of the number “1” would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity to the trademark. The Complainant also cites WIPO Overview 3.0, paragraph 1.8 to support its contention.<\/span><\/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; ii) there is no evidence showing that the Respondent is known by the dispute domain name or owns any corr<\/span>esponding registered trademarks<\/span>; 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 opportunity to argue for its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, but it has failed to do so.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

Registration in bad faith<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith on the grounds: i) its trademark registration dates significantly predate the registration date of the disputed domain name; ii) the Novartis Group has a strong presence online and has an active business presence in China, where the Registrant is based. By a simple online search, the Respondent would have inevitably learnt about the Complainant, its trademark and business; iii) 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; iv) the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s well-known trademark NOVARTIS in its entirety with the gTLD “.kids”, which refers to children, a category of patients the Novartis Group elaborates medicines for. It reflects the Respondent’s clear intention to create an association, and a subsequent likelihood of confusion, with the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n

Use in bad faith<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith on the grounds that the disputed domain name has been passively held. Several factual considerations are clear indicators of bad faith use under the passive holding doctrine: i) the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s well-known trademark NOVARTIS in its entirety; ii) the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website and there is therefore no evidence of any actual or contemplated good-faith use of the disputed domain name; iii) the Complainant also sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent informing of the Complainant’s rights, to which the Respondent did not reply; iv) the Respondent is trying to conceal its identity regarding the ownership of the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain names should be transferred to it.<\/span><\/p>\n

B. RESPONDENT <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/span><\/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 language of the registration agreement is Chinese. The Complainant has requested that the language of the proceedings be English. The Respondent did not respond to the issue of the language of the proceedings and did not reject the Complainant’s request. The Panel is given discretion under Paragraph 11 of the Rules to determine the appropriate language of the administrative proceeding. Paragraph 10 of the Rules mentions that the Panel shall ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case. Based on the following factors, the Panel has decided that it would be fair and equitable to both parties to have the language of the proceedings be English: <\/span><\/p>\n