Buyozempicrussia.com

The timeline behind buyozempicrussia.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. Panarin Mihail / SkiShift Claim Number: FA2607002231997 PARTIES Complainant is Novo Nordisk A/S ("Complainant"), Denmark, represented by Ashly I. Boesche of Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP, United States. Respondent is Panarin Mihail / SkiShift ("Respondent"), Russia. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <buyozempicrussia.com>, registered with Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. David E. Sorkin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 10, 2026; Forum received payment on July 10, 2026. On July 13, 2026, Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC confirmed by email to Forum that the <buyozempicrussia.com> domain name is registered with Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU 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 July 17, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Russian and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 6, 2026 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@buyozempicrussia.com. Also on July 17, 2026, the Russian and English Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 in Russian and English. On August 7, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING The Panel notes that the Registration Agreement is written in Russian. Rule 11(a) provides that the language of this administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise. Complainant requests that the proceeding be conducted in English. The domain name incorporates the English language words "buy" and "Russia," and it is being used to redirect to a website that is substantially in English. The Written Notice of the Complaint was provided to Respondent in both English and Russian, and Respondent has neither objected to the language request nor indicated any intent to participate in the proceedings. Accordingly, the Panel considers it appropriate to conduct the remainder of the proceedings solely in English. See, e.g., 3M Co. v. CÔNG TY CỔ PHẦN LASA / LASA JOINT STOCK CO., FA 2190931 (Forum Dec. 23, 2025) (deciding to conduct proceeding in English in similar circumstances). PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant is a multinational company that develops, manufactures, distributes, markets, and sells pharmaceutical products worldwide. Complainant has used OZEMPIC in connection with pharmaceutical preparations for the treatment of diabetes since at least as early as 2018. More than 7 million adults have used Complainant's OZEMPIC drug therapies, generating billions of dollars in sales. Complainant owns a longstanding United States trademark registration for OZEMPIC in standard character form, along with registrations in many other jurisdictions, and asserts common law rights in the mark. Respondent registered the disputed domain name <buyozempicrussia.com> in March 2026. The domain name is being used to redirect users to a website that purports to "find and deliver goods not available in Russia through a network of trusted travel partners around the world," with a scrolling message that includes "Ozempic Delivery." The website includes images and descriptions of both Complainant's OZEMPIC product and competing products. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark. Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <buyozempicrussia.com> is confusingly similar to its OZEMPIC mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used 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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (version 3.1, 2026), available at https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name <buyozempicrussia.com> incorporates Complainant's registered OZEMPIC trademark, adding the generic term "buy," the geographic term "Russia," and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Novo Nordisk A/S v. Полянский Владислав Владимирович, FA 2209927 (Forum Apr. 8, 2026) (finding <ozempic-russia.com> confusingly similar to OZEMPIC); Novo Nordisk A/S v. Dmytro Venediktov, FA 2210130 (Forum Apr. 8, 2026) (finding <buyozempiconlin.com> confusingly similar to OZEMPIC). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. Its sole apparent use has been to redirect users to a misleading website that uses the mark to promote both what appear to be Complainant's products and competing products. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Novo Nordisk A/S v. aditi sharma, FA 2227366 (Forum July 9, 2026) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Allergan, Inc. v. Amanda Euler, FA 2224470 (Forum July 1, 2026) (same); Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. SECURED WEBSITE, FA 2183661 (Forum Nov. 26, 2025) (same); Novo Nordisk A/S v. gary morin, FA 2219639 (Forum May 28, 2026) (same); Novo Nordisk A/S v. Полянский Владислав Владимирович, supra (same); Brooks Sports, Inc. v. betty turner, FA 1930944 (Forum Mar. 9, 2021) (same). Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] 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 [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location." Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's registered mark, and is using it to redirect users to a misleading website that uses the mark to promote competing products. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Novo Nordisk A/S v. aditi sharma, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Allergan, Inc. v. Amanda Euler, supra (same); Vertex Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. SECURED WEBSITE, supra (same); Novo Nordisk A/S v. gary morin, supra (same); Novo Nordisk A/S v. Полянский Владислав Владимирович, supra (same); Brooks Sports, Inc. v. betty turner, supra (same). The Panel so finds. DECISION Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <buyozempicrussia.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David E. Sorkin, Panelist Dated: August 7, 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.