Novartis AG v. Vladimir Pulek
Claim Number: FA2008001907740
Complainant is Novartis AG (“Complainant”), represented by Kathryn M. Eyster of Tepper & Eyster, PLLC, North Carolina. Respondent is Vladimir Pulek (“Respondent”), UK.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <sandoz-5.digital>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 10, 2020; the Forum received payment on August 10, 2020.
On August 10, 2020, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <sandoz-5.digital> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On August 13, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 2, 2020 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@sandoz-5.digital. Also on August 13, 2020, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On September 8, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s <sandoz-5.digital> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SANDOZ mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <sandoz-5.digital> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <sandoz-5.digital> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Novartis AG, develops medications and vaccines globally. Complainant holds a registration for the SANDOZ mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 315,685, registered August 7, 1934).
Respondent registered the <sandoz-5.digital> domain name on April 6, 2020, and uses it to conduct a phishing scheme.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the SANDOZ mark based on registration with the USPTO. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, “Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”).
Respondent’s <sandoz-5.digital> domain name incorporates the entire SANDOZ mark and simply adds the number “5” and a hyphen to form the disputed domain name. These changes do not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark. See UBS AG v. Jouet Daniels, FA 1783500 (Forum May 30, 2018) (“Addition of hyphens does not distinguish a domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)”); see also Novartis AG v. boggs, william, FA 1570988 (Forum Aug. 25, 2014) (finding that the <freshlook2.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the complainant’s FRESHLOOK mark because the domain name contained the mark in its entirety and merely added the number “2”). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <sandoz-5.digital> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SANDOZ mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
Complainant argues that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <sandoz-5.digital> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the SANDOZ mark in any way. The WHOIS information lists “Vladimir Pulek” as the registrant of the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sep. 4, 2018) (concluding that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where “the WHOIS of record identifies the Respondent as “Bhawana Chandel,” and no information in the record shows that Respondent was authorized to use Complainant’s mark in any way.”).
Complainant contends that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <sandoz-5.digital> domain name because Respondent uses the disputed domain name to phish for Internet user’s personal information. The use of a disputed domain name as part of a phishing scheme does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. I S / Internet Consulting Services Inc., FA 1785242 (Forum June 5, 2018) (“On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”); see also Morgan Stanley v. Zhange Sheng Xu / Zhang Sheng Xu, FA1501001600534 (Forum Feb. 26, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that the respondent’s apparent phishing attempt provides further indication that the respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”). Complainant provides a screenshot of the resolving webpage of the disputed domain showing a warning that the webpage is suspicious and may phish for personal information. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registers and uses the <sandoz-5.digital> domain name in bad faith because Respondent uses the disputed domain to phish for Internet user’s personal information. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent registered and uses the <sandoz-5.digital> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Google Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1506001622862 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent’s apparent use of the disputed domain name in furtherance of a ‘phishing’ scheme further established its bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).
Complainant also argues that Respondent’s bad faith is evinced by the use of Complainant’s fanciful mark in the <sandoz-5.digital> domain name which creates initial interest confusion. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), bad faith may be found when a disputed domain name includes a fanciful mark and would lead consumers to believe the disputed domain name was associated with the complainant. See Johnson & Johnson v. Rx USA, FA 157288 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s unauthorized use of the complainant’s fanciful mark for commercial gain evidenced bad faith registration and use of a domain name); see also Red Bull GmbH v. Gutch, D2000-0766 (WIPO Sept. 21, 2000) (finding that the respondent’s expected use of the domain name <redbull.org> would lead people to believe that the domain name was connected with the complainant, and thus is the equivalent to bad faith use). Complainant contends that there is no possible explanation for incorporating Complainant’s fanciful and unique SANDOZ mark into the disputed domain name other than to create confusion and trade on the goodwill associated with Complainant. The Panel agrees and finds further bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <sandoz-5.digital> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: September 9, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page