The Complainant 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”), was created in 1996 through a merger of two other companies Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz, is the holding company of the Novartis Group.<\/p>\n
The Complainant also owns an important domain names portfolio, including the domain name <novartis.com>.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <novartiscorporations.com><\/strong> was registered on 2 February 2026 and resolves 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": " COMPLAINANT<\/strong><\/p>\n A. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark NOVARTIS. The only difference lies in the addition of the generic term “corporations”. The Complainant has not found that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it has legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, and the Complainant has never granted the Respondent with any rights to use the NOVARTIS trademark.<\/p>\n The Complainant equally submits that the Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant submits that the term “corporations”, is commonly used to refer to a company or corporate entity and is likely to refer to the many companies’ part of the Novartis group. Therefore, it reinforces the misleading impression that the disputed domain name is directly connected with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Complainant, and that it resolves to the Complainant’s official website, which is not the case. <\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant also submits that it sent cease-and-desist letters and reminders to the Respondent, with no response.<\/span><\/p>\n Thus, in accordance with the foregoing, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its distinctive trademark NOVARTIS. The Complainant’s trademark NOVARTIS is widely known. Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademark NOVARTIS.<\/p>\n Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation and the facts exposed above, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. Moreover, the Complainant states that the use of the generic term “corporations” in the disputed domain name was most likely done to confuse internet users by creating a similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant. By reading the disputed domain name, the Internet users may believe that it is directly connected to or authorized by the Complainant. <\/span><\/p>\n In addition, the Respondent is using a privacy shield service to mask its identity in the publicly available Registrar’s WhoIs records. This suggests that the Respondent has sought to conceal its true identity rather than be commonly known by the disputed domain name. Moreover, it appears that the Respondent may have provided false or misleading contact details. <\/strong><\/p>\n Moreover, previous UDRP panels have held, under the doctrine of passive holding, that “the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not by itself prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding”<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n RESPONDENT <\/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": [
"Arthur Fouré"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-06-15 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of the numerous trademarks, including:<\/p>\n International trademark NOVARTIS registered on 1 July 1996 under No. 663765, duly renewed and designating goods and services in international classes 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 07, 08, 09, 10, 14, 16, 17, 20, 22, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 40 and 42;<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n International trademark NOVARTIS registered on 29 June 2020 under No. 1349878, designating goods and services in international classes 09, 10, 41, 42 and 45;<\/span><\/p>\n<\/li>\n
It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark NOVARTIS. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and the domain names associated.
Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD “.com” is a standard registration requirement and may be disregarded when assessing the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.
B. RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTEREST IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/strong><\/p>\n
C. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH<\/strong><\/p>\n
<\/strong>NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/p>\n\n