Novornesis.com

The timeline behind novornesis.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Novozymes A/S, Chr. Hansen A/S v. zahmbaozin shawlneoaja Case No. D2026-1673 1. The Parties The Complainants are Novozymes A/S (the “First Complainant”) and Chr. Hansen A/S (the “Second Complainant”), Denmark, represented by Abion AB, Sweden. The Respondent is zahmbaozin shawlneoaja, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <novornesis.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 20, 2026. On April 22, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 22, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainants on April 23, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainants to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainants filed an amended Complaint on April 24, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 April 28, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 18, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 27, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Wilson Pinheiro Jabur as the sole panelist in this matter on June 2, 2026. 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 First and Second Complainants merged in 2024 to form a new entity named Novonesis, to research, develop and produce enzymes, microbial technologies, and biosolutions. Novonesis employs around 10,000 people and works across 30 research and development centers, also counting with 23 manufacturing sites. The First Complainant is the owner of the domain name <novonesis.com>, registered on September 27, 2023 (Annex 6 to the Amended Complaint), which serves as the official webpage for Novonesis. The Second Complainant is the owner of the following, amongst others, trademark registrations (Annex 4 to the Amended Complaint): - United States trademark registration No. 7,870,271, for the word mark NOVONESIS, registered on July 22, 2025, in classes 3, 9, 30, 31, 32, 33, 38, 41, and 42; - European Union trademark registration No. 018934974, for the word mark NOVONESIS, registered on January 20, 2024, in classes 1, 5, and 29; and - International trademark registration No. 1785790, for the word mark NOVONESIS, registered on February 16, 2024, in classes 1, 3, 5, 9, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 38, 41, and 42. The disputed domain name was registered on October 20, 2025, and presently (as well as at the time of filing of the Complaint), at times the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active webpage, and, at other times, it is used in connection with a parked webpage stating that a website is coming soon and inviting Internet users to include their email addresses to subscribe to a newsletter. Prior to this proceeding, the Complainants addressed a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent on March 11, 2026, to which no reply was received, followed by two reminders on March 24, 2026, and April 15, 2026 (Annex 10 to the Amended Complaint). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainants The Complainants contend that they have satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainants assert to have become the world leader in industrial enzymes and microbial solutions, with nearly 50% market share in both; also having delivered 7% organic growth in 2025 and having generated EUR 770 million in free cash flow while continuing to scale sustainable solutions, including reaching 100% renewable electricity and significantly reducing emissions. Also according to the Complainants, the name Novonesis derives from the Latin words novus (“new”) and genesis (“birth”), symbolizing a new beginning in the field of biotechnology (Annex 4 to the Amended Complaint) and the disputed domain name consists a minor typographical variation thereof, namely the addition of the letter “r”, which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity thereof. page 3 The Complainants further submit that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name given that: a) the Respondent’s name “zahmbaozin shawlneoaja” does not correspond to the disputed domain name or the term “novornesis”; b) the Complainants have not found that the Respondent is known by the disputed domain name (Google search results directly relate to the Complainants, their website or related topics - Annex 7 to the Amended Complaint); c) no information is found in relation with trademarks corresponding to disputed domain name term “novornesis” as well as no searches for online trademark databases indicate that the Respondent (zahmbaozin shawlneoaja) holds any trademark registrations (Annex 8 to the Amended Complaint); d) the disputed domain name has been used in connection with a “Coming Soon” landing page which serves as a facade for commercial monetization given a clickable “Live News” button which when clicked redirects Internet users to a page titled “Live News World RSS Feed” containing clickable hyperlinks that further redirect Internet users to external content, primarily hosted on Fox News (Annex 9 to the Amended Complaint); e) the absence of any relationship between the Respondent and the Complainants, the Respondent not having been authorized to use the NOVONESIS trademark in any manner, including in the disputed domain name; and f) the absence of reply to the cease-and-desist letter and two subsequent reminders sent by the Complainants (Annex 10 to the Amended Complaint) further indicate that the Respondent had an opportunity to show that they have rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name but failed to do so, which further suggests that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainants further contend that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith given that the Complainants enjoy a strong online presence and have registered trademark rights over the distinctive and coined NOVONESIS trademark which predate the disputed domain name thus the Respondent’s registration not being coincidental but rather an intent to exploit user confusion arising from typographical errors made by Internet users seeking the Complainants’ official website, which constitutes opportunistic bad faith. Furthermore, the Complainants argue that the Respondent’s contact details support a finding of bad faith registration, given that the Respondent’s name “zahmbaozin shawlneoaja” does not correspond to any identifiable individual or business entity, as well as the associated email address merely reproduces the same wording, reinforcing the impression that the contact details may be fictitious; as well as the Respondent’s choice to retain a privacy protection service to conceal its identity and the Respondent’s failure to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants’ contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets forth three requirements, which have to be met for this Panel to order the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainants: page 4 (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have 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. The Complainants must prove by a preponderance of the evidence in this administrative proceeding that each of the aforesaid three elements is present in order to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainants have shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 1.7 and 1.9. Although the addition of a letter “r” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such letter does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainants have established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainants’ prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. In that sense, and according to the evidence submitted, the Complainants have made a prima facie case against the Respondent, known as “zahmbaozin shawlneoaja”, who has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name and the Respondent is neither authorized, licensed, nor been allowed to use the Complainants’ trademark, whether in the disputed domain name, or in any other way. In addition, the case page 5 record does not show that the Respondent has any registered trademarks corresponding to the disputed domain name which further corroborates the indication of an absence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Under these circumstances and absent evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not by itself prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. To the contrary, in looking at the totality of circumstances in each case, panels have found that the registration and non-use of a domain name can still constitute bad faith for purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness of the Complainants’ trademark, the composition of the disputed domain name (which appears to be a typosquat variant of the Complainants’ trademark), and the Respondent’s lack of participation in the proceeding, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. In addition to that, this case presents the following circumstances which further corroborate with a finding on the balance of probabilities of the bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name: a) the Respondent has provided no evidence of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the disputed domain name; b) the lack of reply to the cease-and-desist letter and two subsequent reminders sent prior to this proceeding; c) the use of the disputed domain name, at times, in connection with links that would purportedly lead to commercial monetization and, at other times, with the invitation to Internet users to subscribe to a newsletter, thus collecting email addresses for unclear purposes; and e) the indication of what appears to be incomplete or inaccurate contact details. The Panel finds that the Complainants have established the third element 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 <novornesis.com> be transferred to the Complainants. /Wilson Pinheiro Jabur/ Wilson Pinheiro Jabur Sole Panelist Date: June 6, 2026

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.