Westmore · UDRP DecisionNovonordiskcommunitycare.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <novonordiskcommunitycare.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s NOVO NORDISK trademark because it incorporated the mark in its entirety with the descriptive terms “community” and “care.” The Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and the prominent display of the mark while promoting the Respondent’s unrelated products supported findings that the domain was registered and used in bad faith.
The timeline behind novonordiskcommunitycare.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind novonordiskcommunitycare.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates a straightforward targeting case in which an entire distinctive mark was combined with descriptive wording and then reproduced prominently on a commercial website. The combination of preexisting trademark rights in the Respondent’s country, the mark’s distinctive character, and website content directly invoking the mark supported both knowledge at registration and intentional confusion in use.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Novo Nordisk A/S v. Sanjay Sharma, Dynamite Web Solution Case No. D2014-1617 1. The Parties The Complainant is Novo Nordisk A/S of Bagsværd, Denmark, represented by Wallberg IP Advice, Denmark. The Respondent is Sanjay Sharma, Dynamite Web Solution of Lalsot, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <novonordiskcommunitycare.com> is registered with Hostopia.com Inc. d/b/a Aplus.net (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 19, 2014. On September 19, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 19, 2014, 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 Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on October 8, 2014. 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 10, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 30, 2014. Two email communications were received from the Respondent on October 7 and 8, 2014, but the Respondent did not submit any formal response. The Center appointed J. Nelson Landry as the sole panelist in this matter on November 6, 2014. 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 health care company active in the development, promotion and sale of new products in diabetes care for over nearly 90 years. While the Complainant is based in Denmark, it nevertheless employs about 40,700 employees in 75 countries and promotes and sells its products in more than 180 countries thereby generating in 2013 an annual revenue in excess of EUR 11 billion. The NOVO NORDISK trademark of the Complainant is registered worldwide including in India since 2010. Furthermore, the Complainant has a strong Internet presence at the address of “www.novonordsik.com” along with numerous other domain names which comprise the NOVO NORDISK Trademark (herein the “NOVO NORDISK Trademark” or the “Trademark”). The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on July 22, 2014. According to the evidence provided by the Complainant, the Complainant’s Trademark was predominantly displayed on the website to which the disputed domain name resolved. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant represents that the disputed domain name, which incorporates its Novo Nordisk Trademark along with descriptive terms “community” and “care” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.com”, is confusingly similar with its well-known NOVO NORDISK Trademark. The Complainant states that the Respondent has never received any license, consent or authorization from the Complainant to register the disputed domain name and furthermore, the Complainant states that, to its best knowledge, the Respondent is not commonly known in reference to the name “Novo Nordisk” and had not used the said terms or the disputed domain name as a trademark, company name, business or trade name prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. On the basis of these facts and representation, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant relies on the promotion and extensive use of the highly distinctive character of its NOVO NORDISK Trademark and the presence of its Trademark on the website of the Respondent to represent that the Respondent had knowledge of its NOVO NORDISK Trademark’s use and fame in 180 countries including India where the said trademark is registered, to claim that the Respondent was well aware of its Trademark and registered the disputed domain name knowingly and in bad faith. The Complainant further contends that, by the presence and use of its well known Trademark in the disputed domain name and the presence of its Trademark at the very top front of its website main page, the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue as stated in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. Further to the use of its well-known Trademark and its presence on the Respondent’s website, the Complainant states that in view of its United States daughter company running a charity program for three years until the end of 2013, under the name “Novo Nordisk Community Care” well represented on a corresponding website, all of these facts represent that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith and is relying on the worldwide reputation associated with the NOVO NORDISK Trademark. B. Respondent The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has clearly established that it has rights in the NOVO NORDISK Trademark which is registered in several countries including India. The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the NOVO NORDISK Trademark along with descriptive terms, “community” and “care”, and finally, the gTLD suffix “.com”. It is well established in UDRP decisions that the addition of descriptive terms as well as a domain name suffix does not diminish in any way the likelihood of confusion. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the NOVO NORDISK Trademark of the Complainant. The first criterion of the Policy has been met. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests In stating that the Complainant has not granted any license or consent in any form to authorize the Respondent to use its NOVO NORDISK Trademark and that, pursuant to its verification, the Respondent was not using the disputed domain name as a trademark, company name or trade name, nor was it commonly known in reference to the disputed domain name before registration of the disputed domain name, the Complainant has discharged its prima facie duty of showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent did not file any Response nor any comment in this respect in the two email communications to the Center on October 7 and 8, 2014. The use by the Respondent of the NOVO NORDISK trademark on the front page of the Respondent’s website demonstrates a deliberate attempt and specific reference to the Trademark of the Complainant and thereby the Respondent intentionally attempts to attract for commercial gain Internet visitors to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Trademark of the Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. Upon considering this evidence, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not make a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the Trademark at issue. The Panel further finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The second criterion of the Policy has been met. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant has shown by the extent of its use of the Trademark on its products in more than 180 countries, products manufactured by over 40,000 employees in 75 countries with substantial revenues generated in 2013 that its Trademark is most distinctive. “Novo” and “Nordisk” are not common words, rather somewhat inventive, in particular when considered in India where the Respondent is located. The Panel concludes that the Respondent was most certainly aware of the existence of the Trademark of the Complainant when the disputed domain name was registered and the Respondent did not have any authorization to register the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. Consideration of further evidence shows that the NOVO NORDISK Trademark of the Complainant is reproduced in a prominent way on the front page of the Respondent’s website at the disputed domain name. Said website is used to promote products not related to products to control or cure diabetes, but for the Respondent’s own different products, taking advantage of the calculated deception of Internet users who are deliberately confused by the reproduction of the Complainant’s Trademark in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is used in bad faith. The third criterion of the Policy has been met. 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 <novonordiskcommunitycare.com> be transferred to the Complainant. J. Nelson Landry Sole Panelist Date: November 13, 2014
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around novonordiskcommunitycare.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.