Ozempicplus.com

The timeline behind ozempicplus.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Novo Nordisk A/S v. aditi sharma Claim Number: FA2606002227366 PARTIES Complainant is Novo Nordisk A/S ("Complainant"), represented by Ashly I. Boesche of Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is aditi sharma ("Respondent"), India. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <ozempicplus.com> ("Domain Name"), registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 15, 2026; Forum received payment on June 15, 2026. On June 15, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ozempicplus.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On June 18, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 8, 2026 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@ozempicplus.com. Also on June 18, 2026, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On July 9, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant is a global pharmaceutical company with a range of products including a very well-known diabetes treatment (that may also help users lose weight) offered under the name OZEMPIC. Complainant has rights in the OZEMPIC mark through its registration of the mark in multiple jurisdictions including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 4,774,881, registered on July 21, 2015). Respondent's <ozempicplus.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's OZEMPIC mark as wholly incorporates Complainant's OZEMPIC mark and adds the generic or descriptive term "plus" and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <ozempicplus.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its OZEMPIC mark in the Domain Name. Respondent does not use the Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather Respondent, at the website located at the Domain Name ("Respondent's Website"), passes itself off as Complainant by reproducing Complainant's OZEMPIC mark and purports to offer unauthorized versions of Complainant's OZEMPIC products. Respondent registered and uses the <ozempicplus.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the confusingly similar nature of the Domain Name and the absence of a disclaimer to disrupt Complainant's business by impersonating Complainant. Furthermore, Respondent registered the Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the OZEMPIC mark given the fame of the mark and the reference to Complainant's Ozempic product on the Respondent's Website. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant holds trademark rights for the OZEMPIC mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's OZEMPIC mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name in bad faith. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint."). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has rights in the OZEMPIC mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,774,881, registered on July 21, 2015). Registration with the USPTO can sufficiently establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a national trademark authority). The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the OZEMPIC mark as it wholly incorporates the OZEMPIC mark and adds the descriptive term "plus" and the ".com" gTLD. Addition of generic or descriptive terms and a gTLD to a trademark is generally insufficient to negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. pushpender chauhan, FA 1784548 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("Respondent merely adds the term 'supports' and a '.org' gTLD to the DELL mark. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent's disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's DELL mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the OZEMPIC mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA 1621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS information of record lists "aditi sharma" as the registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Domain Name resolves to the Respondent's Website which, through the reproduction of the OZEMPIC mark and photos of and reference to the Complainant's Ozempic product and the absence of any disclaimer, passes itself off as an official website of the Complainant (or one authorized by the Complainant) for the purpose of offering unauthorized versions of Complainant's products for sale in direct competition with products sold in a manner authorized by Complainant. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a webpage that purports to offer unauthorized versions of a complainant's goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; indeed it provides a false impression that the Respondent is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant. See BALENCIAGA SA v. ling lin, FA 1768542 (Forum Feb. 16, 2018) ("The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's registered mark, and are being used for websites that prominently display Complainant's mark and logo, along with apparent images of Complainant's products, offering them for sale at discounted prices. The sites do not disclaim any connection with Complainant, and in fact seem to be designed to create an appearance of such a connection. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests."). See also Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant's mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Name (May 28, 2026), Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's OZEMPIC mark since the Respondent's Website passes itself off as an official website of the Complainant. Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register a domain name that contains the OZEMPIC mark and use it to redirect visitors to a website purportedly selling pharmaceutical products in direct competition with the Complainant's authorized goods other than to take advantage of Complainant's reputation in the OZEMPIC mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant's OZEMPIC mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Name to resolve to a website that passes off as an official website of the Complainant and offers unauthorized products in direct competition with Complainant's authorized products. Using a confusingly similar domain name to trade upon the goodwill of a complainant can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). See also See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant."). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <ozempicplus.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist Dated: July 9, 2026 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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