The Complainant is Gilead Sciences, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), internally represented.
The Respondent is Fred Feiler, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 4, 2020. On June 4, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 4, 2020, 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 June 5, 2020, 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 June 9, 2020. 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 June 9, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 29, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 30, 2020. The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on July 8, 2020. 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 an international biopharmaceutical company. It owns a number of registrations for the mark GILEAD, including United States Reg. No. 3251595, registered on June 12, 2007. The disputed domain name was registered on May 27, 2020. The Complainant believes that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name for an illegitimate purpose, possibly for phishing, spam, or spoofing, or to later divert traffic from the Complainant’s genuine website. The Respondent has published a website at the disputed domain name that is a spoof of the Complainant’s own home page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; 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. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The incorporation of a trademark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark. See Britannia Building Society v. Britannia Fraud Prevention,WIPO Case No. D2001-0505. In this case, the disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s trademark GILEAD in its entirety. The addition of “us” within the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark certificate belong to its respective owner. See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., Les Publications Conde Nast S.A. v. Voguechen,WIPO Case No. D2014-0657. The Complainant has demonstrated its rights because it has shown that it is the owner of multiple valid and subsisting trademark registrations for the mark GILEAD. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel evaluates this element of the Policy by first looking to see whether the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of production to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests shifts to the Respondent. The Complainant has established, prima facie, that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. On this point, the Complainant asserts, among other things, that: - the Respondent is not associated or affiliated with the Complainant; - the Complainant has not granted any rights to the Respondent to use the GILEAD mark, whether a license to sell any products or offer any services, or any rights to register the disputed domain name; - there is no information to suggest that Respondent has become commonly known as “Gilead”; and - the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide use – instead it has used the disputed domain name to set up a fake website, mimicking the legitimate website of the Complainant. These facts establish the Complainant’s prima facie showing. The Respondent has not provided any evidence to rebut this prima facie showing. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established this second element under the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Policy requires a complainant to establish that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Policy describes several non-exhaustive circumstances demonstrating a respondent’s bad faith use and registration. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, a panel may find bad faith when a respondent “[uses] the domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [respondent’s] website or location or a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location”. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Registering and using the disputed domain name to set up a website that copies the Complainant’s website is a clear example of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. The Complainant’s assertions of suspected phishing or other illegitimate activity bolster these notions. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established this third element under 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 Evan D. Brown
Sole Panelist
Date: July 16, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy