DECISION

 

Novo Nordisk A/S v. Kelsey Crawley

Claim Number: FA2508002174183

 

PARTIES

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

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <ozempicpill.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.

 

James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 28, 2025; Forum received payment on August 28, 2025.

 

On August 29, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ozempicpill.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 September 2, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 22, 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@ozempicpill.com.

 

Also on September 2, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On September 23, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 formal response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant claims rights in the OZEMPIC trademark established by its ownership of the portfolio of registrations described below and extensive use of the mark in its pharmaceutical business across the world.

 

Complainant submits that it is a globally recognized pharmaceutical manufacturer headquartered in Denmark. It operates as a multinational entity engaged in the research, development, production, marketing, and sale of pharmaceutical products across a wide range of therapeutic areas.

 

Among its most prominent pharmaceutical products is a medication marketed under the trademark OZEMPIC, which has become a cornerstone of Complainant's diabetes care portfolio and is widely prescribed by healthcare professionals across the globe.

 

Complainant maintains a robust online presence and maintains its principal website at <www.ozempic.com>, which serves as a comprehensive resource for patients, healthcare providers, and the general public. This website includes detailed information about the OZEMPIC product, its indications, usage guidelines, safety information, and promotional materials.

 

Through its website, Complainant has engaged in extensive advertising and public education campaigns aimed at increasing awareness of OZEMPIC and its therapeutic benefits. These efforts have contributed to the widespread recognition of the OZEMPIC mark and have reinforced its association with Complainant's high-quality pharmaceutical offerings.

 

Complainant firstly alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's OZEMPIC mark arguing that:-

Complainant's ownership of registered trademarks for OZEMPIC in multiple jurisdictions as described below establishes its rights under the Policy.

 

Furthermore, Complainant claims that it has acquired substantial common law rights in the OZEMPIC mark through continuous use, advertising, and consumer recognition. The mark has been used extensively in commerce since at least 2018 and has generated billions of dollars in sales. More than seven million adults with type 2 diabetes have used OZEMPIC drug therapies, further solidifying the mark's association with Complainant.

 

The disputed domain name <ozempicpill.com> incorporates the entirety of the OZEMPIC mark, combined with the descriptive term "pill" and the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.com>.

 

Complainant argues that the combination of elements in the disputed domain name does not diminish the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant's trademark. In fact, the addition of the term "pill" reinforces the association with pharmaceutical products and increases the likelihood of consumer confusion.

 

Prior decisions of panels established under the Policy have consistently held that domain names at issue which incorporate a protected trademark along with a descriptive term are confusingly similar. For example, in Medline Industries, LP v. Mark Alexander / Med Line Pills, FA 1964069 (Forum Oct. 18, 2021) (finding the domain name <medlinepills.com> confusingly similar to the trademark MEDLINE because it incorporated the complainant's MEDLINE mark and added the term "pills" and the generic top-level domain (gTLD) ".com").

 

Complainant adds that use of the gTLD extension is irrelevant in assessing similarity under the Policy because domain name syntax requires the inclusion of a TLD, and its presence does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the OZEMPIC mark.

 

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

·       there is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the name "OZEMPIC" or by the disputed domain name <ozempicpill.com>;

·       the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name does not identify Respondent by any name associated with the OZEMPIC mark;

·       there is no indication that Respondent has acquired any trademark or service mark rights in the name;

·       Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any capacity;

·       Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the OZEMPIC mark in any capacity, and the absence of such authorization is a strong indicator that Respondent lacks legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name. This principle has been affirmed in numerous decisions under the Policy, including Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, Navistar Int'l Corp. v. N Rahmany, and Telstra Corp. Ltd. v. Nuclear Marshmallows;

·       as shown in a screen capture which is exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page that features hyperlinks to third-party pharmaceutical products;

·       the parking page has generated links to pharmaceutical products such as Viagra and Cialis, which are entirely unrelated to Complainant and its OZEMPIC drug therapies; and such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor does it represent a legitimate noncommercial or fair use;

·       panels established under the Policy have consistently held that passive holding of a domain name, particularly when it is used to generate revenue through unrelated third-party links, does not establish rights or legitimate interests. Relevant decisions include Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Syed Hussain / IBN7 Media Group, FA 1721384 (Forum Apr. 26, 2017) (holding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to commercial websites, unrelated to the complainant and presumably with the purpose of earning a commission or pay-per-click referral fee did not evidence rights or legitimate interests in the domain name).

·       the notoriety and fame of the OZEMPIC mark further undermine any claim that Respondent could be commonly known by the name, see Pepsico, Inc. v. Becky a/k/a Joe Cutroni, FA 117014 (Forum Sept. 3, 2002) ("The notoriety and fame of Complainant's PEPSI and PEPSI-COLA trademarks, due to Complainant's popular soft drink products, creates a presumption that no one else could be commonly known by the mark or the trade name.");

·       the widespread recognition of a trademark creates a presumption that no third party could legitimately claim rights in a domain name incorporating that mark.

 

Thirdly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith arguing:-

 

Respondent registered the disputed domain name on June 3, 2023, long after Complainant had adopted, used, and registered its OZEMPIC mark in 2015. The timing and nature of the registration suggest that Respondent intended to exploit the goodwill associated with the OZEMPIC brand, which constitutes bad faith.

 

The inclusion of the term "pill" alongside the OZEMPIC mark in the disputed domain name indicates that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's trademark and sought to capitalize on its reputation. A respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's mark supports an argument of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and can be inferred from the reputation of the mark and the use to which the domain name at issue is put. This principle is affirmed in Waymo LLC v. Aniket Bansode, FA 2169157 (Forum Aug. 27, 2025) (based in part on the notoriety of Complainant's mark, the Panel inferred that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the WAYMO mark at the time of registration and accordingly finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name <waymo.asia> in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).

 

Additionally, the disputed domain name resolves to a web page containing links to third-party websites offering pharmaceutical products, which further supports a finding of bad faith. Such use is typically associated with pay-per-click schemes designed to generate revenue from consumer confusion. Panels have consistently found this type of use to be indicative of bad faith, as seen in Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. v. Guess, Lorna / Where's One, Inc., FA 1792031 (Forum July 30, 2018) ("[u]sing a domain name to host pay- per-click advertisements redirecting users to complainant's competitors demonstrates bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv)").

 

The combination of actual knowledge, misleading use, and commercial exploitation of the OZEMPIC mark demonstrates that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding.  Correspondence from Respondent was received by Forum on September 3, 2025.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is a multinational pharmaceutical manufacturer that develops, produces, markets, and sells pharmaceutical products globally. Among its most prominent products is a medication marketed under the trademark OZEMPIC, which is used in the treatment of type 2 diabetes.

 

Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for OZEMPIC, including:

·       United States registered trademark OZEMPIC, registration number 4,774,881, registered on the Principal Register on July 21, 2015, for goods in International Class 5;

·       Australian registered trademark OZEMPIC, registration number 1783422, registered on November 9, 2016, for goods in Class 5;

·       United Kingdom registered trademark OZEMPIC, registration number UK00913519418, registered on March 19, 2015, for goods in Class 5.

 

Complainant has an established Internet presence and maintains its website at <www.ozempic.com>.

 

The disputed domain name <ozempicpill.com> was registered on June 3, 2023, and resolves to the Registrar's parking page, which contains multiple hyperlinks to third-party websites.

 

There is no information provided about Respondent, except for that provided in the Complaint, the Registrar's WHOIS database for the disputed domain name, and the Registrar's response to Forum's request for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purpose of this proceeding.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 formal 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has provided convincing, uncontested evidence that it has rights in the OZEMPIC mark, established by the ownership of the portfolio of trademark registrations above and extensive global use of the mark, in commerce since at least 2018, having generated billions of dollars in sales; and that more than seven million adults with type 2 diabetes have used OZEMPIC drug therapies.

 

The disputed domain name <ozempicpill.com> consists of Complainant's mark in its entirety in combination with the descriptive word "pill" together with the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.com>.

 

It is well accepted that while each case is judged on its own merits, in proceedings where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, the domain name at issue will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of the Policy.

 

Applying this principle this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.

 

In the circumstances of this proceeding, neither the descriptive element "pill" nor the gTLD <.com>, prevents a finding of confusing similarity with the OZEMPIC mark.

 

This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the OZEMPIC mark in which Complainant has rights, and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing that the disputed domain name resolves to the Registrar's parking page with links to third party websites; and that Respondent itself does not carry on any bona fide or legitimate business using the disputed domain name or the OZEMPIC mark.

 

It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests.

 

Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

OZEMPIC is a distinctive mark, globally known for its use by Complainant on its diabetes medicine.

 

The disputed domain name contains the OZEMPIC mark in its entirety as the initial, dominant and only descriptive element in the disputed domain name.

 

The disputed domain name <ozempicpill.com> was registered on June 3, 2023, long after Complainant's earliest registrations of the OZEMPIC mark in 2015.

 

Given the notoriety and reputation of the OZEMPIC mark, it is most improbable that the registrant of the disputed domain name was not aware of Complainant and its OZEMPIC product when the disputed domain name was chosen and registered.

 

This is confirmed by the fact that the disputed domain name is a combination of Complainant's mark and the descriptive word "pill" which infers a connection with Complainant's pharmaceutical product.

 

In the circumstances of this case, Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to resolve to the Registrar's parking page shows that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

On the balance of probabilities Respondent is using the disputed domain name which clearly infers a reference to Complainant's product, as bait for Internet users, to attract them and misdirect them to the links on Registrar's parking page from which Respondent is profiting from pay-per-click income. Such abuse of Complainant's trademark and goodwill constitutes bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.

 

As this Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, Complainant has succeeded in the third element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <ozempicpill.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

______________________________________________

 

James Bridgeman SC, Panelist

Dated: September 24, 2025