DECISION

 

Novo Nordisk A/S v. David Gomez

Claim Number: FA2509002174872

 

PARTIES

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

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <prozempic.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.

 

 Hon. Karl v. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 3, 2025; Forum received payment on September 3, 2025.

 

On September 3, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <prozempic.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 4, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 24, 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@prozempic.com. Also on September 4, 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 25, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) 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, Novo Nordisk, is a multinational company that develops, manufactures, distributes, markets, and sells pharmaceutical products worldwide including the diabetes treatment advertised and sold under the trademark OZEMPIC.

 

The disputed domain name, registered May 13, 2024, incorporates Complainant's entire OZEMPIC mark and differs only by the addition of the descriptive term "pr(o)" and the ".com" gTDL.

 

Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in its disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use its OZEMPIC mark. Respondent has not used or prepared to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

 

Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith to divert users from Complainant's websites and disrupt Complainant's business for Respondent's commercial gain. There is no legitimate reason for Respondent's registration and use of the domain name.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

For the reasons set forth below, based upon the uncontested allegations and evidence, the Panel finds that Complainant is entitled to the requested relief of transfer of the <prozempic.com> domain name.

 

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 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 or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has many registrations of the OZEMPIC mark, including Registration No. 4,774,881 registered July 21, 2015, with the USPTO. Complainant's registration of the OZEMPIC mark with the United States and other countries establishes Complainant's rights in the mark, as "registration of a mark with a legitimate governmental authority is sufficient under the Policy to allow a rebuttable presumption of rights in the mark." See Target Brands, Inc. v JK Internet Services, FA 349108 (Forum Dec. 14, 2004). The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent's <prozempic.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the OZEMPIC mark because it incorporates that mark completely, while merely adding the descriptive term "pr(o)" and the ".com" gTDL. The addition of generic or descriptive words does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity. 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."). Additionally, it is a well-established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Isleworth Land Co. v Lost in Space, SA, FA117330 (Forum Sept. 27, 2002). The Panel finds that Respondent's <prozempic.com>domain name is confusingly similar to the OZEMPIC mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant has proved this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that 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"). The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case.

 

Complaint argues that Respondent has not been licensed, contracted, or otherwise permitted by the Complainant in any way to use the OZEMPIC mark or to apply for any domain name incorporating the OZEMPIC mark, nor has the Complainant acquiesced in any way to such use or application of the OZEMPIC mark by the Respondent. There is no evidence of fair use and there is no evidence that the Respondent is using or plans to use the OZEMPIC mark or the domain name incorporating the OZEMPIC mark for a bona fide offering of goods or services. There is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name.

 

WIPO Overview 3.0, Section 2.1 provides:

While the overall burden of proof rests with the complainant, panels have recognized that this could result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge of the respondent. Therefore a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP. 

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has not met the burden and finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.

 

Complainant has proved this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complaint argues that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's OZEMPIC mark to confuse internet users for commercial gain. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that falsely presents itself as an official or authorized site for Complainant's Ozempic products. Use of a confusingly similar domain name to disrupt a complainant's business for commercial gain can be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See PopSockets LLC v. san mao, FA 1740903 (Forum Aug. 31, 2017) ("Generally, there is no restriction on what constitutes a disrupting of a Complainant's business, and using a confusingly similar domain name to disrupt a complainant's business can evince bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)."). The incorporation of the OZEMPIC mark into the disputed domain name is evidence of Respondent's intent to lure Internet traffic to its commercial site by capitalizing on Complainant's mark and to profit by attracting Internet users to its website. See Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. v. Lewis, FA 1337417 (Forum Sept. 2, 2010) (finding similarity between the respondent's domain name and the complainant's mark demonstrated that the respondent intended to exploit the complainant's established reputation and goodwill).

  

Due to the notoriety of Complainant's mark and the use made of the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its mark when it registered the dispute domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Nics Telekomunikasyon A.S., FA 1890140 (Forum Apr. 24, 2020) ("[W]here a disputed domain name is so obviously connected with such a well-known name, product or service, its use by someone with no connection to the name, product or service indicates opportunistic bad faith"); See also Google LLC v. Noboru Maruyama/Personal, FA 1879162 (Forum Mar. 3, 2020) ("the registration and use of domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark with which the respondent has no connection has frequently been held to be evidence of bad faith").

 

The Panel finds, from Respondent's knowledge of Complainant's mark and the use made of the disputed domain name, that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith.

 

Complainant has proved this element.

 

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

 

 

Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) Panelist

September 29, 2025