According to the information provided the disputed domain name <novartiscorp.top> was registered on 24 October 2025.<\/p>\n
According to the information provided by Complainant the disputed domain name currently does not resolve to an active website. Previously the disputed domain name resolved to a WordPress administrator login 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": "
Complainant 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 Policy).<\/p>",
"no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": " Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown 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": " 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": [
"Dinant T.L. Oosterbaan"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-02-06 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " Complainant is the owner of multiple trademarks for NOVARTS, including the international trademark NOVARTIS nr. 663765, date of registration 1 July 1996 and the Indonesian trademark NOVARTIS No. IDM000668579 registered on 31 January 2020.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"novartiscorp.top": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}
<\/b>
Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.
According to the evidence submitted by Complainant, Complainant is the holding company of the Novartis Group. 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. The Novartis Group achieved net sales of USD 50.3 billion, total net income amounted to USD 11.9 billion and employed approximately 76.000 full-time equivalent employees as of December 31, 2024. The Novartis group has maintained a long-standing presence in Indonesia, the country where respondent is located, for more than 50 years, originally operating through its predecessor companies, Ciba and Sandoz. Today, the Novartis Group’s activities are consolidated under a single legal entity, PT Novartis Indonesia.
Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s well-known trademark NOVARTIS in its entirety and the term “corp”, which is commonly understood as an abbreviation for “corporation”, as well as the generic Top-Level Domain “.top”. The addition of the term “corp” would not prevent of confusing similarity. The presence of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension “.top” in the disputed domain name is a standard registration requirement.
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Complainant has never granted Respondent with any rights to use the NOVARTIS trademark in any form, including in the disputed domain name. Moreover, there is no evidence that Respondent is known by the dispute domain name or owns any corresponding registered trademarks. According to Respondent’s alleged website at “support.jegtheme.com”, Respondent is a professional web developer that creates premium themes and plugins. No mentions on the website at “support.jegtheme.com” refer to the name “Novartis”. It therefore appears that the disputed domain name bears no connection to Respondent’s name, business, or bona fide offering of goods or services. Complainant submits that the structure of the disputed domain name – incorporating Complainant’s trademark NOVARTIS in its entirety, the term “corp” and the gTLD “.top” – reveals that Respondent’s intention in registering the disputed domain name was to refer to Complainant, its trademark and business activity and to create an association, and a subsequent likelihood of confusion, with Complainant and its NOVARTIS trademark in Internet users’ mind. Currently the disputed domain name is being passively held. There is no evidence showing that Respondent is 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 noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
According to Complainant the disputed domain name is registered and is being used in bad faith. Complainant’s trademark registrations significantly predate the registration of the disputed domain name and Respondent has never been authorized by Complainant to register the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Novartis Group has an active business presence in Indonesia, country where Respondent is based. By conducting a simple search online on popular search engines regarding the terms “Novartis” – alone or in association with the term “corp” –, Respondent would have inevitably learnt about Complainant, its trademark and business. Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is passively held. Previous UDRP Panels have held, under the doctrine of passive holding, that “the non-use of a domain would not prevent a finding of bad faith” (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3). Complainant asserts that there is no evidence of any actual or contemplated good-faith use of the disputed domain name.
Respondent
<\/strong>
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>",
"rights": "