According to the information provided the disputed domain name <novartisproject.com> was registered on 26 September 2026. <\/p>\n
According to the information provided by Complainant the disputed domain name currently does not resolve to an active website. Previously it resolved to the website of Complainant “www.novartis.com”. In addition, MX records have been set up.<\/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> According to Complainant 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 “project” as well as the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”. The addition of the term “project” would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity to the trademark. According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Complainant has never granted Respondent 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 disputed domain name or owns any corresponding registered trademarks. Complainant submits that Respondent has not been using, or preparing to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services, nor making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The structure of the disputed domain name, incorporating Complainant’s trademark NOVARTIS in its entirety and the term “project”, 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. The term “project” directly refers to many aspects of the Novartis Group’s business activity such as, for instance, the Novartis Pipeline. By reading the disputed domain name, Internet users may believe that it is directly connected or authorized by Complainant and that it will resolve to Complainant’s official website, which is not the case. The disputed domain name has redirected to Complainant’s website at “www.novartis.com”. It is well established that unauthorized redirection to a complainant’s website does not constitute evidence of rights or legitimate interest.<\/p>\n The disputed domain name has redirected to Complainant’s website at “www.novartis.com”. Such redirection aims at misleading Internet users in believing that the disputed domain name belonged to or is authorized by Complainant, which is not the case. It has been held that the redirection of the domain name to complainant’s website is evidence of bad faith use.<\/p>\n Furthermore, active MX records are associated to the disputed domain name. There might therefore be a risk that corresponding e-mail addresses be used. Internet users receiving e-mails from e-mail addresses associated with the disputed domain name (such as “[…]@novartisproject.com”), combined with the fact that the disputed domain name resolves to Complainant’s website, may be led to believe that they are personally contacted by Complainant.<\/p>\n The overall described circumstances are clear demonstration of the registration and use of the disputed domain name is in bad faith.<\/p>\n 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": "2026-11-09 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " Complainant is the owner of the international trademark NOVARTIS nr. 663765, date of registration 1 July 1996, and of the United States trademark NOVARTIS No. 2336960, registered on April 4, 2000. <\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"novartisproject.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}
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 information submitted by Complainant, the Novartis Group is one of the biggest global pharmaceutical and healthcare groups. Novartis AG is the holding company of the Novartis Group. In 2025, Novartis achieved net sales of USD 54.5 billion, and total net income amounted to USD 14 billion and employed 75.267 full-time equivalent employees as of December 31, 2025.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
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. It is therefore unplausible that Respondent did not know about Complainant, its products, and its NOVARTIS trademark when it registered the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
Respondent<\/strong>
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>",
"rights": "