The Complainant is Novo Nordisk A/S of Bagsværd, Denmark, represented by Wallberg IP Advice, Denmark.
The Respondent is train stop of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Ascio Technologies Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 14, 2015. On May 18, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 19, 2015, 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.
The Center verified that 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 22, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 11, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 12, 2015.
The Center appointed Fabrizio Bedarida as the sole panelist in this matter on June 23, 2015. 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 is a global healthcare company with almost 90 years of innovation and leadership in diabetes care. The company also has leading positions in hemophilia care, growth hormone therapy and hormone replacement therapy. Headquartered in Denmark it employs approximately 40,700 employees in 75 countries, and markets its products in more than 180 countries. The annual turnover was EUR 11.2 billion in 2013.
The Complainant has claimed to hold trademark registrations worldwide for the trademark NOVO NORDISK and proved to be the holder of Community Trade Mark registration No. 000144923 for NOVO NORDISK registered on June 19, 1998.
The Complainant has a strong Internet presence with its main homepage being “www.m”.
The Complainant’s trademark registrations long predate the registration of the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name was registered on September 4, 2013. The disputed domain name resolves to a website where, among others, it displays several sponsored links referring to the Complainant’s products. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s NOVO NORDISK registered trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests whatsoever with respect to the disputed domain name; and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In order for the Complainant to obtain a transfer of the disputed domain name, the Policy paragraphs 4(a)(i) – (iii) require that the Complainant must demonstrate to the Panel that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established to have registered rights to the NOVO NORDISK trademark. The disputed domain name is clearly identical to the Complainant’s NOVO NORDISK trademark save for the “.co” technical requirement.
Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be identical or confusingly similar to the trademark NOVO NORDISK in which the Complainant has rights.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
This Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant, and the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use or register any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent does not appear to make any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, nor any use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services for the reasons described in section 6.C below. In addition, the Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the name “Novo Nordisk” or by a similar name. Finally, the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions, alleging any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Considering that the Complainant’s trademark has been registered and used for many years and thus long predates the disputed domain name’s registration, that the Complainant is headquartered in Denmark where, apparently also the Respondent’s administrative, billing and technical contacts are located, and in the absence of contrary evidence, the Panel finds that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s services and trademarks and deliberately intended to create an association with the Complainant and its business; that the Respondent must have had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name; and that the above described use of the disputed domain name, i.e.,to divert Internet traffic to the Respondent’s website where a pay-per-click advertising site is displayed, falls within the example of bad faith set out in 4(b)(iv) of the Policy: “by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”
Accordingly, the Panel finds on the basis of the evidence presented, that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Therefore, the Complainant has satisfied 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, , be transferred to the Complainant.
Fabrizio Bedarida
Sole Panelist
Date: July 2, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy