Novartis AG v. REDACTED PRIVACY
Claim Number: FA2206002002146
Complainant: Novartis AG of Basel, Switzerland.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: BRANDIT GmbH of Zurich, Switzerland.
Respondent: Hamad Nasser NJIMOLUH of Yaounde, International, CM.
Respondent Representative:
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Binky Moon, LLC
Registrars: OVH sas
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Petter Rindforth, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: June 28, 2022
Commencement: July 6, 2022
Default Date: July 21, 2022
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Findings of Fact:
The Complainant is the owner of the trademark NOVARTIS, registered as:
International Trademark registration No. 1249666 NOVARTIS (word), registered on April 28, 2015, covering goods and services in Intl Classes 1, 3, 5, 9, 10, 16, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 40, 41, 42 and 44, and valid in 7 countries/regions around the world.
International Trademark registration No. 1349878 NOVARTIS (word), registered on April 28, 2015, covering goods and services in Intl Classes 9, 10, 41, 42, 44 and 45, and valid in 70 countries/regions around the world.
The Complainant has provided evidence of use by screenshots from Complainant’s web site www.novartis.com.
There is no information on the Respondent, other than provided by the Complainant, as the Respondent has not responded.
Legal Findings and Conclusion:
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.
IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR
The Complainant met the standard sets out in 1.2.6.1. of the URS Procedure since the Complainant has proved its right to the valid International trademark registrations No. 1249666 and No. 1349878 NOVARTIS (word). Further, the Complainant has proved that the said trademark is in current use by presenting screenshots from Complainant’s web site www.novartis.com.
The relevant part of the disputed domain name is <novartis>, as the added top-level domain – being a required element of every domain name – is generally irrelevant when assessing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar and in this case does nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark.
The Examiner thereby concludes that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's trademark NOVARTIS.
NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS
The Respondent does not have any rights in <novartis.agency> as the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to register a domain name containing its registered and used trademark NOVARTIS, nor is the Respondent commonly known by <novartis.agency>.
As NOVARTIS is a distinctive and well known trademark, the Examiner also draw the conclusion that the Complainant has shown that the Respondent cannot have any legitimate interests in registering and using <novartis.agency>.
To summarize, the Examiner find that the Complainant has established that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <novartis.agency>.
BAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE
The According to the URS Procedure 1.2.6.3, examples of circumstances that demonstrate bad faith registration and use by the Registrant include:
a. Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.
In this case, the Complainant has shown that the Respondent, although not traditionally actively using the disputed domain name, it is linked to a page with the message “Félicitations ! Votre domaine a bien été créé chez OVHcloud !” (In English: “Congratulation ! Your domain has been successfully created at OVHcloud!”) thereby creating confusion for customers seeking information on the Complainat’s goods and services on the possible relations with the said service provider.
The Respondent has also refused to reply to Complainants cease-and-desist letter sent to Respondent on April 19, 2022.
Although the Respondent has not responded, the inactive use as such strongly indicates that the Respondent has registered or acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name.
Thus, the Examiner concludes that the Complainant has established that the Respondent has registered and used <novartis.agency> in bad faith.
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:
<novartis.agency>
Petter Rindforth, Examiner
Dated: July 22, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page