WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Novartis AG v. Sergei Gruzdov Case No. D2019-2033 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Novartis AG, Switzerland, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.

The Respondent is Sergei Gruzdov, Russian Federation. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with REG.RU LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 20, 2019. On August 20, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 21, 2019, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 22, 2019, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on August 26, 2019.

On August 22, 2019, the Center transmitted an email in English and Russian to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant requested that English be the language of the proceeding on August 23, 2019. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.

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 August 29, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 18, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 19, 2019.

The Center appointed Assen Alexiev as the sole panelist in this matter on October 3, 2019. 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 was created in 1996 through the merger of the companies Ciba-Geigy and Sandoz. It is among the world’s top pharmaceutical companies, and its products are available in 155 countries.

One of the Complainant’s pharmaceutical products is RITALIN. It is indicated for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and narcolepsy in children and adults, and was first marketed in the 1950’s.

The Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registrations for the sign RITALIN (the “RITALIN trademark”):

- European Union trademark RITALIN with registration No. 002712818, registered on January 8, 2004 for goods in International Class 5, and

- International trademark RITALIN with registration No. 689728, registered on February 13, 1998 for goods in International Class 5.

The Complainant is the owner of the domain name , registered on March 6, 2000.

The disputed domain name was registered on June 20, 2019. It resolves to a Russian language website that offers for sale many different medicines, including RITALIN. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to the RITALIN trademark in which the Complainant has rights, as it reproduces the trademark in its entirety. As a result, Internet users may believe that the disputed domain name is affiliated or operated by the Complainant. The disputed domain name also resolves towards a webpage which is giving information about the Complainant’s RITALIN drugs and which is proposing to sell these drugs online.

According to the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, as the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and has not been authorized by the Complainant to seek registration of any domain name incorporating the RITALIN trademark. The Complainant adds that the Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, since the registration of the RITALIN trademark preceded the registration of the disputed domain name for years. The Complainant also points out that the Respondent has not made any use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent is offering RITALIN products for sale without prescription, thus taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s rights, by capitalizing on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s RITALIN trademark and misleadingly diverting Internet users to its own website. The Complainant also draws the attention to the fact that email servers have been configured on the disputed domain name and thus there might be a risk that the Respondent is engaged in a phishing scheme.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant points out that it is widely known throughout the world, and a simple search via any search engine using the keyword RITALIN demonstrates that all first results relate to the Complainant or to its services. According to the Complainant, it is therefore impossible that the Respondent did not have the RITALIN trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name. Rather, the Respondent chose the disputed domain name to take unfair advantage of the Complainant's goodwill and reputation by intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's RITALIN trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website.

The Complainant points out that the disputed domain name resolves to a website offering RITALIN products for sale without prescription, and the Respondent is thus trying to take advantage of the Complainant’s trademark rights, by creating an initial interest confusion. The Complainant also submits that email servers have been configured on the disputed domain name and there might be thus a risk that the Respondent is engaged in a phishing scheme aimed at stealing valuable information such as credit cards numbers from the Complainant’s clients or employees.

The Complainant submits that on June 25, 2019, it sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent. The Respondent replied but its response was not conclusive. B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

In its July 2, 2019 response to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter of June 25, 2019, the Respondent stated in English: “Our site is informational and does not sell drugs, the domain name was not occupied a