DECISION

 

Novo Nordisk A/S v. Cristopher Gomez

Claim Number: FA2508002173282

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Novo Nordisk A/S ("Complainant"), represented by Ashly I. Boesche of Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Cristopher Gomez ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <naturezempic.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 25, 2025; Forum received payment on August 25, 2025.

 

On August 25, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <naturezempic.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 26, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 15, 2025 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@naturezempic.com. Also on August 26, 2025, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On September 16, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts trademark rights in OZEMPIC and submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Further, Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that:

 

1.       Complainant uses the trademark, OZEMPIC, in connection with pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of diabetes;

2.       Complainant is the owner of United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 4,774,881, which issued on July 21, 2015;

3.       the disputed domain name was registered on February 14, 2025, by Respondent; and

4.       the disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers ZEMPIC branded yerba mate powdered teas.

 

DISCUSSION

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.  

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.

 

It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)).  Complainant therefore has rights in OZEMPIC since it provides proof of registration of that trademark in its name with the USPTO, a national trademark authority.   

 

For the purposes of comparison of the domain name with the trademark, the gTLD, ".com", can be disregarded (see, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) finding that the top level of the domain name such as ".net" or ".com" does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar). The comparison reduces to that of the term, NATUREZEMPIC, with the trademark. The Panel finds that internet users would decode NATUREZEMPIC as NATURE ZEMPIC. It finds, too, that the word "nature" would be perceived as somehow descriptive/generic and that the memorable element of the domain name is ZEMPIC. Finally, the Panel's limited research indicates that neither OZEMPIC nor ZEMPIC has an ordinary meaning, at least in English. What follows is that the distinctive part of the disputed domain name is similar to the trademark, differing by the omission of one letter. On balance, the Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark (see, for example, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.")).

 

The Panel therefore finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

 

(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;  or

 

(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights;  or

 

(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000‑0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000)).

 

Complainant states that the domain name registrant is "completely unidentified" and that "the Registrar subsequently revealed the identity of the Respondent to be Christopher Gomez". It relies on what appears to be a screenshot from the Registrar's WhoIs service which shows no owner. The Panel observes that there was no deficiency notice from the Forum regarding the Complaint which had in fact named Christopher Gomez as Respondent. The Panel reproduced the Registrar's WhoIs service search which showed Christopher Gomez as the domain name registrant. The Panel has accordingly ignored any inference that Respondent intentionally concealed his identity.

 

Nevertheless, there is no evidence that Respondent has any trademark rights and there is nothing to engage paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy since there is no indication that Respondent might be commonly known by the domain name (see, for example, Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 0139720 (Forum Feb. 10, 2003) stating "nothing in [the respondent's] WHOIS information implies that [the respondent] is 'commonly known by' the disputed domain name" as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply").

 

So far as paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy is concerned, Complainant states that Respondent has no authority to use the trademark.  Its submission is that:

 

"[o]n the home screen of its <naturezempic.com> website, Respondent also touts that its products provide "GPL-1 Support". GLP-1 is the term used to describe a group of diabetes treatments,

Respondent's use of the Infringing Domain Name and use of the NATUREZEMPIC mark on the Infringing Website creates the mistaken impression that they are authorized by, or affiliated with, [Complainant]. 

 

The domain name resolves to a website which essentially promotes the sale and health benefits of yerba mate tea. There is incidental reference to GPL-1 support but nothing making any specific claim about yerba mate tea in relation to diabetes.  The Panel does not consider that the resolving website promotes goods that might be somehow thought of as related to pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of diabetes. Nor is the Panel persuaded that the resolving website creates the impression that it is authorized by, or affiliated with, Complainant.

 

However, the Panel has already noted the distinctive character of the trademark and the lack of any ordinary meaning of the term ZEMPIC that might support its fair use. There has been no Response. The resolving website claims more than "100,000 happy customers", apparently from a website which could have only derived from the domain name for seven months.  Further, albeit that the Complaint may not hold enough to prove the common law trademark rights in OZEMPIC that it asserts, there are indicators that the mark has been used widely for many years. In these circumstances the Panel draws the reasonable inference that the term ZEMPIC and the domain name were coined by Respondent to take advantage of the reputation of the trademark and to ride on its coat tails to sell an essentially unrelated product. Such conduct does not bring Respondent under the protection of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.

 

Accordingly, the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests.  Absent a Response, the onus is not met and so the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant must prove both that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and used in bad faith. Further guidance on that requirement is found in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, which sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established. 

 

The four specified circumstances are:

 

(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent 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 the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

 

(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

 

(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

 

(iv) by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to respondent's website 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 the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.

 

The evidence supports the application of paragraph 4(b)(iv) above. The Panel has already found the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the trademark. The use of the domain name is clearly for commercial gain. In terms of the Policy, the Panel finds that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to its website by creating at least an initial likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that website.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the third and final element of the Policy.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the domain name <naturezempic.com> be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist

Dated:  September 17, 2025