ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION QlikTech International AB v. 林 藏 (Lin Zang) Case No. D2024-2111 1. The Parties The Complainant is QlikTech International AB, Sweden, represented by Abion AB, Sweden. The Respondent is 林 藏 (Lin Zang), China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 22, 2024. On May 22, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 22, 2024, 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 (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 23, 2024, 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 4, 2024. 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 5, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 25, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 26, 2024. The Center appointed Kateryna Oliinyk as the sole panelist in this matter on July 1, 2024. 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.
page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a leading technology company specializing in data analytics and business intelligence solutions. Through its innovative platform, the Complainant enables businesses to consolidate and visualize data from various sources, facilitating intuitive data discovery and exploration. The Complainant has a global presence with offices in North America, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, Europe, Middle East, Asia, and Africa, and maintains a robust network of international partners. The Complainant was recognized as a Top 10 Innovative Growth Company for 2015 by Forbes. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for the QLIK trademark, such as but not limited to: - European Union Trade Mark No. 001115948 for QLIK, registered on May 16, 2000, for goods and services in International Classes 9, 35, and 42; - United Kingdom Trademark No. UK00901115948 for QLIK, registered on May 16, 2000, for goods and services in International Classes 9, 35, and 42; - European Union Trade Mark No. 012215141 for QLIK & device, registered on February 6, 2014, for goods and services in International Classes 9 and 42; and - Swedish Trademark Registration No. 371354 for QLIK, registered on April 1, 2005, for goods and services in International Classes 9, 38, 41, and 42. The disputed domain name was created on May 17, 2024, and resolves to an inactive page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name and the QLIK trademark are confusingly similar. The Complainant further contends that the QLIK trademark remains recognizable within the disputed domain name and incorporation of a well-known trademark may be sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant also contends that the addition of the term “apps” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.life” does not prevent confusing similarity. No Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant’s contentions, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, has not used or prepared to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, and has not been authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted by the Complainant to register and/or use the disputed domain name.
page 3 The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has failed to make use of the disputed domain name and has not demonstrated any attempt to make legitimate use of the disputed domain name and website, which evinces a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant also claims that non-use of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant submits that the registration of the Complainant’s QLIK trademark pre-dates the registration of the disputed domain name and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s QLIK trademark when it registered the disputed domain name. The Complainant further contends that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. The Complainant also asserts that the passive holding of the disputed domain name demonstrates the Respondent’s bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: “[a] Panel shall 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 directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following: i. that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; ii. that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and iii. that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Considering that the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions, in order to determine whether the Complainant has met its burden as stated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel bases its decision on the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy and the Rules. Under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, where a Party does not comply with any provision of the Rules, the Panel “shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate”. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.
page 4 The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here, “-apps”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. Section 1.11.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0 states: “The applicable TLD in a domain name (e.g., ‘.com’, ‘.club’, ‘.nyc’) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test”. The gTLD “.life” will therefore be discounted in the Panel’s consideration of confusing similarity. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Based on the case filing, the Panel establishes that there is no evidence that the Respondent is a licensee of, or otherwise affiliated with, the Complainant, and apparently, it has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its QLIK trademark. Based on the present case records, the Panel finds that there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, and there is no similarity or association between the name of the Respondent and the disputed domain name, which could demonstrate rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent. See, e.g., World Natural Bodybuilding Federation, Inc. v. Daniel Jones TheDotCafe, WIPO Case No. D2008-0642. There is no evidence that the Respondent has used or made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial fair use or a bona fide offering of goods or services.
page 5 The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. Prior UDRP panels have found that the passive holding of a disputed domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See, by way of example, Skyscanner Limited v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / petrov petya, WIPO Case No. DCC2020-0003; and Instagram, LLC v. Zafer Demir, Yok, WIPO Case No. D2019-1072: “The passive holding of the disputed domain name does not amount to use or preparations to use it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. Nor is there any evidence which indicates that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Nor does a passive holding of the disputed domain name comprise a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of it.” The Panel agrees and holds the passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent in this case does not amount to any bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. The Complainant has produced evidence showing that it owns registrations for the QLIK trademark, of which registration date significantly precedes the registration date of the disputed domain name. In addition, the Complainant has credibly submitted that over the years it has developed substantial goodwill in the QLIK trademark. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of 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 be transferred to the Complainant. /Kateryna Oliinyk/ Kateryna Oliinyk Sole Panelist Date: July 24, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy