DECISION

 

Novo Nordisk A/S v. sameh mhamed / massoft

Claim Number: FA2607002233211

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Novo Nordisk A/S ("Complainant"), represented by Ashly I. Boesche, Esq. of Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is sameh mhamed / massoft ("Respondent"), Egypt.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <novonordiskevents.com> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with Name.com, Inc.

 

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.

 

David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 16, 2026; Forum received payment on July 16, 2026.

 

On July 20, 2026, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <novonordiskevents.com> domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, 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 July 21, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 10, 2026, 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@novonordiskevents.com. Also on July 21, 2026, 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 August 11, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges:

 

That it is a multinational pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures, distributes, markets, and sells pharmaceutical products worldwide, and that it has advertised and promoted its products on its website at novonordisk.com since 1989. Complainant's peptide-based portfolio includes GLP-1 receptor agonists marketed under its OZEMPIC and WEGOVY brands, which are sold in more than 100 countries.

 

That it owns trademark registrations for NOVO NORDISK in the United States and numerous other jurisdictions, including U.S. Reg. No. 1,637,355 (issued March 12, 1991), U.S. Reg. No. 2,694,527 (issued March 11, 2003), and U.S. Reg. No. 6,317,854 (registered April 13, 2021), together with registrations in Egypt, the European Union, Canada, Denmark, Mexico, and an international registration extended to many jurisdictions.

 

That the Disputed Domain Name <novonordiskevents.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's NOVO NORDISK mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the descriptive term "events" and the gTLD ".com," neither of which distinguishes the domain name from the mark.

 

That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by NOVO NORDISK, is not affiliated with Complainant, and has not been licensed or authorized to use the NOVO NORDISK mark. The website resolving from the Disputed Domain Name displays Complainant's NOVO NORDISK mark and design mark and prompts visitors to enter their Novo Nordisk account log-in credentials, which is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

 

That Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name long after Complainant adopted, used, and registered its NOVO NORDISK mark, with actual knowledge of that mark, and uses it to resolve to a website that reproduces Complainant's marks and purports to allow visitors to sign into their Novo Nordisk accounts, thereby creating the false impression that the website is operated or authorized by Complainant.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds the following:

 

Complainant has marketed pharmaceutical products under the NOVO NORDISK name for decades. The record contains Complainant's trademark registrations for NOVO NORDISK, among them U.S. Reg. Nos. 1,637,355, 2,694,527, and 6,317,854 (the earliest issued March 12, 1991), together with registrations in Egypt (No. 228334), the European Union, Canada, Denmark, and Mexico, and an international registration. Complainant has promoted its products at its website at novonordisk.com since 1989 and sells its products in more than 100 countries. On this record the Panel finds that the NOVO NORDISK mark was well known when the Disputed Domain Name was registered.

 

Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name <novonordiskevents.com> on May 4, 2026. The Registrar-supplied WHOIS information identifies the registrant as "sameh mhamed" of the organization "massoft," in Alexandria, Egypt.

 

The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website that prominently displays Complainant's NOVO NORDISK word mark and design mark, greets visitors with a "Welcome to Novonordisk!" message, and presents a sign-in page prompting visitors to submit their Novo Nordisk account log-in credentials (the "Respondent's Website"). On the uncontested record, the Respondent's Website is designed to appear as an official or authorized Novo Nordisk website and to induce visitors to disclose their account credentials. The Panel finds that this credential-harvesting sign-in page is a phishing device.

 

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 allegations. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 4.3; eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established rights in the NOVO NORDISK mark through its trademark registrations, including U.S. Reg. No. 1,637,355. A trademark registration is sufficient to establish a complainant's rights in a mark. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.2.1.

 

The Disputed Domain Name <novonordiskevents.com> incorporates Complainant's NOVO NORDISK mark in its entirety and adds only the descriptive term "events" and the gTLD ".com." The addition of a descriptive term and a gTLD does not distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the mark. See Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Blanca Martinez / Firstclasspartyevents, FA 1823509 (Forum Feb. 1, 2019) (finding <disneyevents.com> confusingly similar to the DISNEY mark, as the addition of a gTLD and the generic term "events" to a complainant's mark is generally insufficient to overcome confusing similarity); see also Dollar Financial Group, Inc. v. Di Wu, FA 2033021 (Forum Mar. 31, 2023) ("gTLDs are irrelevant for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis").

 

The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's NOVO NORDISK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, after which the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have such rights or interests. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 2.1.

 

The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "sameh mhamed," a name bearing no resemblance to the Disputed Domain Name or to NOVO NORDISK, and there is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Novo Nordisk A/S v. aditi sharma, FA 2227366 (Forum July 9, 2026) (finding a respondent not commonly known by the <ozempicplus.com> domain name where the WHOIS information identified the registrant only as "aditi sharma"). Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the NOVO NORDISK mark. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018).

 

Nor is Respondent making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent's Website reproduces Complainant's NOVO NORDISK marks and presents a counterfeit sign-in page that solicits visitors' account log-in credentials. Using a domain name confusingly similar to a complainant's mark to operate a page that duplicates the mark and induces users to submit sensitive log-in information is not a legitimate use under the Policy. See Chase Corporation v. Blanca Luna / Chase Corporation, FA 1993965 (Forum June 10, 2022) (finding that a resolving website duplicating the complainant's mark and featuring a user login page requiring the submission of potentially sensitive information qualifies as phishing).

 

Respondent has not responded or otherwise rebutted Complainant's prima facie case. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on May 4, 2026, long after Complainant adopted, used, and registered its NOVO NORDISK mark and decades after Complainant began using the mark. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the NOVO NORDISK mark in its entirety, and the Respondent's Website reproduces Complainant's word mark and design mark and holds itself out as a Novo Nordisk sign-in portal. On this record the Panel finds that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark and to exploit its goodwill. See Novo Nordisk A/S v. Dmytro Venediktov, FA 2210130 (Forum Apr. 8, 2026) (finding bad faith where the respondent registered a domain incorporating a Novo Nordisk mark long after the mark had become well known); see also JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Hakan Hamzaoglu, 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").

 

By using the Disputed Domain Name to resolve to a website that reproduces Complainant's marks and represents itself as an official or authorized Novo Nordisk site, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of the website. This constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Target Brands, Inc. v. yumyoo yum, FA 2108641 (Forum Aug. 22, 2024) (finding bad faith where the resolving webpage displayed the complainant's mark and logo to attract Internet users for commercial gain).

 

The Respondent's Website goes further: it presents a counterfeit Novo Nordisk sign-in page that prompts visitors to enter their account log-in credentials. The Panel finds that this credential-harvesting page is a phishing device, and the use of the Disputed Domain Name to deceive Internet users into disclosing their credentials is further evidence of bad faith registration and use. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 3.4; Chase Corporation v. Blanca Luna / Chase Corporation, FA 1993965 (Forum June 10, 2022).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith under 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 <novonordiskevents.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated: August 11, 2026