{
    "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-008361",
    "time_of_filling": null,
    "domain_names": [
        "novartis-bio.eu"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Novartis (Novartis AG)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "PIERRE MARIONE"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The present case arises further to a complaint filed by Novartis AG and Novartis Pharma GmbH. It is specified that Novartis Pharma GmbH is part of the Novartis Group, of which Novartis AG is the headquarter company. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant notably owns the following trademarks: \r\n\r\n- International word mark NOVARTIS No. 663765, registered on July 1, 1996, in classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, 20, 22, 28, 29, 30 , 31, 32, 40, and 42 designating France; and \r\n\r\n- International word mark NOVARTIS No. 666218, registered on October 31, 1996, in classes 41 and 42 designating France.\r\n \r\nThe Complainant has an online presence through its websites, such as www.novartis.fr, “www.novartis.com” or “www.novartis.ch” and social networks. The Complainant also owns numerous domain names incorporating the NOVARTIS mark, including <novartis.fr>, <novartis.com>, and <novartis.ch>, the vast majority of which point to the Complainant’s official websites. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent, Pierre MARIONE, registered the domain name <NOVARTIS-BIO.EU> on October 25, 2019. \r\n \r\nThe Complainant being aware of this registration filed a complaint on June 2, 2022 complaint which was acknowledged receipt on June 3, 2022.\r\n\r\nAccording to ADR rules, EURid transmitted the relevant information on the registrant revealing in particular the identity and address of the physical body owner of the disputed domain name. In the light of this further and new information, the ADR Centre requested the Complainant to amend its complaint. This was done accordingly on June 14, 2022. \r\n\r\nThe Respondent was properly notified and informed that, should it fail to send the Response within the prescribed period of time, the Respondent would be considered in default. \r\n\r\nOn August 18, 2022, the ADR Centre issued a \"notification of Respondent's default\" informing the Respondent that he failed to comply with the ADR Centre's request.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant request the transfer of the disputed domain name to Novartis Pharma GmbH.\r\n\r\nThe Panel was therefore appointed, and has duly filed the \"statement of acceptance and declaration of impartiality and independency\".",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "There are no other legal proceedings of which the Panel is aware that are pending or decided and that relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "discussion_and_findings": "Pursuant to article 21 (1) of the European Regulation n° 874\/2004 relating to the Speculative and abusive registrations: “a registered domain name shall be subject to revocation, using an appropriate extra-judicial or judicial procedure, where that name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and\/or Community law, such as the rights mentioned in Article 10(1), and where it: \r\n\r\n(a) has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or \r\n(b) has been registered or is being used in bad faith” \r\n\r\nAs a result, to dispute the registration of a domain name the Complainant has to demonstrate that: \r\n\r\n1- The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by national and\/or Community law. \r\n\r\n2- The Domain Name is registered by the holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or \r\n\r\n3- The Domain Name is registered or is being used in bad faith. \r\n\r\n(i) Identical or confusingly similar \r\n\r\nComplainants demonstrate they have valid trademark rights in the NOVARTIS sign. \r\n\r\nThe Panel recognizes that Complainants' trademark rights in the NOVARTIS sign are established. \r\n\r\nThe Panel also agrees that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NOVARTIS trademark, the suffix “BIO” making no difference per se. On the contrary, the reference to \"BIO\" for biology refers to the known activity of the Complainants.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the disputed domain name <novartis-bio.eu> incorporates Complainants’ Registered Trademarks “NOVARTIS” in its entirety. In several decisions, panels considered that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark (WIPO Case No. D2021-2689, Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Guman Sulaen, Sulaen Company \/ Ivan Petrenkos \/ Leonid Duhar \/ Josh White, Build LMTD \/ Name Redacted ; WIPO Case No. D2011-1627, L’Oréal, Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie v. Jack Yang, WIPO Case No. D2010-1059, Rapidshare AG, Christian Schmid v. InvisibleRegistration.com, Domain Admin, WIPO Case No. D2007 1629, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Relish Entreprises, and WIPO Case No. D2000-0113, The Stanley Works and Stanley Logistics, Inc. v. Camp Creek Co., Inc. and WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.7 ). This occurs to be the case here. \r\n\r\nAccordingly, by registering said domain name, Respondent has created a likelihood of confusion with Complainants' trademark. It is likely that the domain name could mislead Internet users into thinking that it is, in some way, associated with the Complainants. \r\n\r\nAs a result, the Panel finds that the domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to the trademark “NOVARTIS” owned by Complainants. \r\n\r\n(ii) No rights nor legitimate interests \r\n\r\nComplainants shall provide a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The burden of proof thereto shifts to Respondent. \r\n\r\nThis standard has been recognized throughout continuous case law, see WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., where it was established that 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, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. \r\n\r\nComplainants assert that Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name and therefore was not commonly known by the disputed domain name. In addition, Complainant never granted any authorization to Respondent to use their  trademark nor to register the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Panel would nevertheless raise the fact that the complainants' argument based on the use of an \"anonymised\" email may not necessarily be relevant. Indeed, pursuant the GDPR regulations, physical person, including email that may contain personal data, should be anonymised. This does not mean that the Respondent would not receive the emails. Indeed, the email address is only an alias of a potential correct and valid email address. Furthermore, and for the same reasons, the whois privacy is in line with the necessity of anonymisation of personal data, being in fine revealed for the sake of the Complaint. Unless specific malicious conduct, this sole element ought not to be considered as a bad faith pattern.\r\n\r\nHence, this could not been considered as an overabundant element.     \r\n\r\nFurthermore, Respondent did not provide a reply to the Complaint. In previous cases, panels have held that such mutism from the Respondent’s part was proof that Complainant and Respondent had no relation and that Respondent is not commonly known under the disputed domain name (see FILEHIPPO S.R.O. v. whois agent, Case No. 102279 (CAC January 31, 2019), “In the absence of a response, the Panel accepts the Complainant's allegations as true that the Respondent has no authorization to use the Complainant’s trademarks in the disputed domain name. Hence, as the Complainant has made out its prima facie case, and as the Respondent has not demonstrated any rights or legitimate interests as illustrated under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, nor has the Panel found any other basis for finding any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.”). \r\n\r\nRespondent failed to answer the allegations discussed in the Complaint. Therefore, the contentions in the Complaint are presumed correct. \r\n\r\nBecause there is an absence of an apparent right or legitimate interest and the failure of the Respondent to provide evidence illustrating that they have a legal right or legitimate interest, the Panel determines that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests regarding the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\n\r\n(iii) Registration or Use in Bad Faith \r\n\r\nTo comply with article 21 (1) of the European Regulation n° 874\/2004, Complainant must demonstrate that the disputed domain name is registered or is being used in bad faith. It is then not necessary to prove both registration and use in bad faith but rather it is sufficient if evidence illustrates one of the two elements discussed is met in order to comply with article 21 (1) of the European Regulation n° 874\/2004. \r\n\r\nIt is established that the disputed domain name directed originally to a website presenting products of the Complainants or alike. It is only by the filing of an abuse report to the hosting provider, that the Website has been removed on April 25, 2022. \r\n\r\nIn this regards, the Panel considers that the pattern of conduct constitutes a bad faith conduct. \r\n\r\nThe Panel thus considers that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith by Respondent and that the third element is fulfilled.",
    "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that\r\n\r\nthe domain name <NOVARTIS-BIO.EU> be transferred to the Complainant, Novartis Pharma GmbH.",
    "panelists": [
        null
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-08-29 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "I.      Disputed domain name: NOVARTIS-BIO.EU\r\n\r\nII.     Country of the Complainant: Switzerland, country of the Respondent: France\r\n\r\nIII.    Date of registration of the domain name: October 25, 2019\r\n\r\nIV.    Rights relied on by the Complainant (Art. 21 (1) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004) on which the Panel based its decision:\r\n\r\n        1.   word international trademark registered in France, reg. No. 663765, for the term NOVARTIS, filed on July 1, 1996, registered on July 1, 1996 in respect of goods and services in classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 16, 17, 20, 22, 28, 29, 30 , 31, 32, 40, and 42\r\n        2.   word international trademark registered in France, reg. No. 666218, for the term NOVARTIS, filed on October 31, 1996, registered on October 31, 1996 in respect of goods and services in classes 41 and 42\r\n\r\nV.    Response submitted: No\r\n\r\nVI.   Domain name\/s is identical \/ confusingly similar to the protected right\/s of the Complainant\r\n\r\nVII.  Rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent (Art. 21 (2) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004):\r\n        1. No\r\n        2. Why: The records show no rights or legitimate interest on the part of the Respondent in the disputed domain name and the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name not providing bona fide products and has been suppress pursuant an abused reporters to the web hosting company. No evidence shown that the Respondent has any connection with the Complainants. \r\n\r\nVIII. Bad faith of the Respondent (Art. 21 (3) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004):\r\n        1. Yes\r\n        2. Why: illicit selling of products bearing the trademark of the Complainants - Cancellation of the website by web hosting company pursuant an abuse reported\r\n\r\nIX.   Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant:\r\n\r\nX.    Dispute Result: Transfer of the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nXI.   Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant:\r\n\r\nXII.  [If transfer to Complainant] Is Complainant eligible? Yes",
    "decision_domains": [],
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}