WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Novartis AG v. liubo shi, liu bo shi Case No. D2019-2122 1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is liubo shi, liu bo shi, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with Xin Net Technology Corp. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 30, 2019. On August 30, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 4, 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 September 4, 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 in English on September 6, 2019.

On September 4, 2019, the Center transmitted an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant confirmed the request that English be the language of the proceeding on September 5, 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 in English and Chinese, and the proceedings commenced on September 10, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 30, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 1, 2019.

The Center appointed Deanna Wong Wai Man as the sole panelist in this matter on October 8, 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 is a global pharmaceutical company, headquartered in Switzerland. The Complainant was founded through a merger of two pharmaceutical companies in 1996, and commercializes a drug for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and narcolepsy in children and adults under the trademark RITALIN.

The Complainant owns a trademark portfolio protecting RITALIN (word marks), including, amongst others, the following trademark registrations: International trademark registration number 689728, registered on February 13, 1998, and designating, amongst others, the Respondent’s home jurisdiction China, and European Union trademark registration number 2712818, registered on January 8, 2004. The disputed domain name was registered on July 9, 2019, and is linked to a redirection page, where Internet users are redirected to the registration page of an Internet platform offering gambling services and lotteries. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant essentially contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark for RITALIN, that the Respondent has no 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.

The Complainant contends that its trademarks are famous and well-regarded in the pharmaceutical sector, and provides evidence of its marketing materials, including the contents of its official website. The Complainant also provides a number of prior UDPR decisions in which the respective UDRP panels have accepted that the Complainant’s trademark RITALIN is a well-known trademark (see for instance Novartis AG v. Radu Luca,WIPO Case No. D2017-0793 and Novartis AG v. Leloy Nuijens / Whois Privacy Corp.,WIPO Case No. D2016-0487). Moreover, Complainant provides evidence that the disputed domain name is linked to an active registration webpage of an Internet platform offering gambling services and lotteries. The Complainant essentially contends that such use does not confer any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and constitutes registration and use in bad faith.