DECISION

 

Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Jessie Larson

Claim Number: FA2311002072279

PARTIES

Complainant is Gilead Sciences, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Cynthia Smuzynska of Gilead Sciences, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is Jessie Larson ("Respondent"), Colorado, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <gileadscience.me>, registered with Dynadot Inc.

 

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.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 25, 2023; Forum received payment on November 25, 2023.

 

On November 28, 2023, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <gileadscience.me> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot Inc 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 November 29, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 19, 2023 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@gileadscience.me. Also on November 29, 2023, 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 December 20, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that, founded in 1987 in Foster City, California, it is one of the largest and most successful biopharmaceutical companies in the world. Complainant discovers, develops and commercializes innovative medicines in areas of unmet medical need. In 2021, Complainant's total worldwide revenue was approximately USD $27.3 billion. In 2022, Complainant was listed as #129 in the Fortune 500 Companies rankings. Complainant is regularly listed in the Fortune 500 Companies and Forbes' World's Best Employers rankings. Complainant develops, manufactures, and offers for sale over twenty-five pharmaceutical products, including BIKTARVY, EPCLUSA, HARVONI, and TRUVADA. Complainant sells products which prevent and treat HIV infection and products which cure hepatitis C. The launch of Complainant's recently approved pharmaceutical product, BIKTARVY, was one of the most successful drug launches ever, with sales exceeding US $4.7 billion in 2019. Complainant is a member of the S&P 500 and employs approximately 14,500 individuals worldwide. Complainant has been the subject of hundreds of unsolicited news articles in such well-known publications as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and national television and radio networks, thrusting Complainant and the GILEAD brand into the limelight. The GILEAD brand has become a household name since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, in light of Complainant's treatment by the name of VEKLURY (remdesivir) which was authorized for emergency use by the FDA in 2020 and later received full FDA approval. Complainant asserts rights in the GILEAD SCIENCES and GILEAD marks based upon their registration in the United States in, respectively, 1990 and 2007. The marks are registered elsewhere around the world and they are famous.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its marks as it contains the GILEAD mark in its entirety, with the addition of the generic/descriptive term "science", and it consists of a misspelling of the GILEAD SCIENCES mark (the the last letter "s" is omitted), merely adding the generic top level domain ("gTLD") ".me".

 

According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use its marks. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial of fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name is offered for sale at a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name is offered for sale at a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs. Respondent made use of a privacy shield. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the GILEAD mark prior to registration of the disputed domain name.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns the marks GILEAD SCIENCES and GILEAD and uses them to market pharmaceuticals. The marks are well known.

 

Complainant's rights in its marks date back to, respectively, 1990 and 2007.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2023.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks.

 

The disputed domain name is offered for sale at a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs.

 

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 3.0 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

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's GILEAD mark in its entirety, with the addition of the generic/descriptive term "science", and it consists of a misspelling of Complainant's GILEAD SCIENCES mark (the the last letter "s" is omitted), merely adding the generic top level domain ("gTLD") ".me". Such changes fail sufficiently to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word "advisors" and the gTLD ".com" did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Chegg Inc. v. Company CEO / Qulity Programming, FA 1610061 (Forum Apr. 20, 2015) (finding confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) whereas "Respondent's <chwgg.com> domain name is a simple misspelling of Complainant's CHEGG.COM mark."); see also Morgan Stanley v. Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine Llc, FA 1785347 (Forum June 8, 2018) ("The [<morganstonley.com> and <morganstainley.com>] Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant's marks, as they fully incorporate the MORGAN STANLEY mark, varying it only by subtle misspellings, omitting a space between the words, and adding the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") '.com.'"). Thus the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent's use of the same); see also Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sep. 4, 2018) (concluding that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where "the WHOIS of record identifies the Respondent as "Bhawana Chandel," and no information in the record shows that Respondent was authorized to use Complainant's mark in any way."). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Jessie Larson". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Respondent makes no use of the disputed domain name other than to offer to sell it for an amount in excess of out of pocket costs. This does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Sub-Zero, Inc. v. Viljami Ylönen / INTL Enterprises, FA 1965059 (Forum Nov. 5, 2021) ("Redirecting Internet users to a domain name sale page is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."); see also Sojag, Inc. v. Hong young jin, FA 1918082 (Forum Dec. 2, 2020) ("Complainant asserts that the domain name resolves to a website the sole function of which is to offer domain name for sale at a price greatly in excess of its costs to obtain and maintain the domain name. This employment is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services by means of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of it under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) such as would confirm in Respondent rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name as provided in those subsections of the Policy."). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's marks. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.

 

Indeed, as already noted, Respondent offers to sell the disputed domain name at a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs. This can evince bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Staples, Inc. v. lin yanxiao, FA1505001617686 (Forum June 4, 2015) ("Respondent's offering to sell the disputed domain name to a third party (in this case, the general public) supports a finding of bad faith registration and use."); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Forum Sept. 30, 2003) ("Respondent's general offer of the disputed domain name registration for sale establishes that the domain name was registered in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i)."); see also Am. Anti-Vivisection Soc'y v. "Infa dot Net" Web Serv., FA 95685 (Forum Nov. 6, 2000) (finding that "general offers to sell the domain name, even if no certain price is demanded, are evidence of bad faith"). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).

 

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 <gileadscience.me> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: December 20, 2023