WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Rajesh Nair M, Graffitopaints Case No. D2019-1100 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Gilead Sciences, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), internally represented.

The Respondent is Rajesh Nair M, Graffitopaints, India, self-represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 11, 2019. On May 13, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 14, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the 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 May 17, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 6, 2019. The Response was filed with the Center on May 18, 2019.

The Center appointed Warwick A. Rothnie as the sole panelist in this matter on June 13, 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 established in 1987 in the United States. Since then, it has grown to be one of the largest biopharmaceutical companies in the world. The Complainant employs some 11,000 people world-wide. It is listed in the S & P 500 and at number 116 in the Fortune 500 Companies rankings. Amongst other things, it has marketing approval in the United States for 27 pharmaceutical treatments and has marketing subsidiaries in many countries, including Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, China, the Republic of Korea, Canada and Mexico. In 2018, it had global revenues in the order of USD 22.1 billion. Some of its products are included in the World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines.

The Complaint includes evidence that the Complainant has numerous registered trademarks for GILEAD or marks which include that term. For present purposes, it is sufficient to mention only:

(a) European Union Trademark (EUTM) No. 003913167, GILEAD, which was registered on November 7, 2005 in respect of “Chemicals for use in science, scientific research and for laboratory use, analytical and diagnostic reagents for in vitro use“ in International Class 1, “pharmaceutical and veterinary preparations, chemical, analytical and diagnostic reagents for in vivo use, chemicals for use in medical research, and medical or veterinary diagnosis” in International Class 5, and “scientific, medical and industrial research and development services, clinical research, laboratory research, research and development of new drugs and clinical products, analysis of materials, chemical analysis, laboratory services, laboratory testing services, medical laboratory services, information and advisory services relating to the foregoing, including such services provided on-line from a computer network or the Internet” in International Class 42,

(b) United States Registered Trademark No. 3,251,595, GILEAD, which was registered on June 12, 2007 in respect of “pharmaceutical preparations, namely, antivirals, antifungals and preparations for the treatment of infectious conditions” in International Class 5,

(c) Indian Registered Trademark No. 2363685, GILEAD, which was registered as of July 13, 2012 in respect of pharmaceutical preparations in International Class 5, and

(d) Chinese Registered Trademark No. 10357628, GILEAD, registered on January 21, 2017 in respect of amongst other things “pharmaceutical preparations” in International Class 5.

These are just a few illustrative examples of the Complainant’s registered trademarks.

The Respondent is an individual who appears to be located in India and who claims to be a web designer.

The disputed domain name was registered on November 20, 2018.

At least for a time prior to the filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website which purported to be the website of Gilead Pharma LLC which, according to the website, had been founded in 2010. The website had tabs for “Our Products” and “Our Partners” as well as “About Us” and “Contact Us”. The text on the homepage was in surprisingly ungrammatical English, but indicated the operator of the website was engaged in the medical industry. 5. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest the Respondent of the disputed domain name, the Complainant must demonstrate each of the following:

(i) the disputed domain name is identic