WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Novartis AG v. Jeremiah Heisenberg, Offshore Hosting Solutions Ltd.

Case No. DCO2017-0034

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Novartis AG of Basel, Switzerland, represented by BrandIT GmbH, Switzerland.

The Respondent is Jeremiah Heisenberg, Offshore Hosting Solutions Ltd. of Victoria, Seychelles.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <novatis.co> is registered with TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd. (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on September 26, 2017. On September 26, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 26, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In response to an email communication by the Center for clarification, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on October 10, 2017.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy" or "UDRP"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules").

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 11, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 31, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on November 3, 2017.

The Center appointed William F. Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on November 24, 2017. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant, a publically traded company based in Switzerland, is the owner of the registered trademark NOVARTIS (the "Mark"). Commencing in 1999, the Complainant has obtained international, European Union and national registrations for the Mark. For example, the Complainant is the owner of International trademark no. 666218 NOVARTIS (word mark), registered on October 31, 1996 for services in international classes 41 and 42. The Mark is used by the Complainant in over 180 countries in connection with the international sale of pharmaceutical products. Novartis employs approximately 123,000 persons around the world. Since April 2, 1996, the Complainant has owned and operated the website "www.novartis.com" along with other websites incorporating the Mark, including Novartis China at "www.novartis.com.cn". See generally Novartis AG v. Hka c/o Dynadot Privacy, WIPO Case No. D2014-1737 (transferring <novartis.buzz>).

The disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring the retail sale pharmaceutical products by a "Novatis Labs," a company purportedly "established in China owned and run by a qualified pharmacist offering products to alter the human gene to improve the genetic capability of athletes" and claiming to have "grown from strength to strength in [sic] 2013…" "www.novatis.co".

The disputed domain name was registered on April 21, 2014.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends the disputed domain name is substantially similar to the Mark in that the disputed domain name simply omits the single letter "r" from the Mark. The Complainant contends this alteration is trivial with the result that the disputed domain name retains the look and feel of the Mark. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has conducted no bona fide business under the disputed domain name and therefore has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Finally, the Complainant asserts the disputed domain names was registered and is being used in bad faith to deceptively attract unsuspecting Internet users to the Respondent's website to sell competitive products or to obtain personally identifying information.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's Mark. Excluding the Top-Level Domain as we must, the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's Mark, but for the omission of a single letter "r". The disputed domain nonetheless retains the look, feel, sound and appearance of the Complainant's Mark. Credit Karma, Inc. V. Above.com Domain Privacy / Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd./ Protection Domain, WIPO Case No. D3017-1827. Additionally, the disputed domain name has all the indicia of typo-squatting in that omitting a single letter when typing the Complainant's Mark results resolves to Respondent's website. Dow Jones & Company Inc. and Dow Jones, L.P. v. Powerclick, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000−1259 ("Respondent's typo squatting, by its definition, renders the domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's mark").

The Complainant has met its burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has specifically denied authorizing the use of the Mark or the disputed domain name by the Respondent. The Respondent has failed to come forth with any demonstration of rights or legitimate interests in the Mark or disputed domain name, nor is there any apparent or alleged use by the Respondent of the term "Novatis" other than in the disputed domain name and its related website. The use of the disputed domain name, confusingly similar to the Complainant's Mark, in and of itself does not establish a bona fide service or product offering. E.J. McKernan Co. v. Texas International Property Associates, WIPO Case No. D2007-1499.

The Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant's Mark is recognized internationally and was obviously known by the Respondent, a company selling pharmaceutical products some of which are actually manufactured by the Complainant. Even assuming the Respondent's inconceivable ignorance of the Complainant when registering the disputed domain name, a quick search of the name "Novatis" finds websites about the Complainant and its Mark.

The Panel also finds the disputed domain name is being utilized as a method to collect personally identifying information from duped Internet users landing at the Respondent's website which solicits "contact" information from website visitors seeking pharmaceutical information. Such conduct may be considered an attempt to derive illegitimate profit from Internet user confusion with the Complainant's Mark and is also disruptive of the Complainant's business. See Credit Karma, Inc. v. Domain Hostmaster, Whois Privacy Service Pty Ltd. / Zhichao Yang, WIPO Case No. D2017-0744.

The Complainant has met its burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <novatis.co> be transferred to the Complainant.

William F. Hamilton
Sole Panelist
Date: December 4, 2017