QlikTech International AB v xi chen

WIPO Case No. D2024-2684

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

QlikTech International AB v. xi chen

Case No. D2024-2684

1. The Parties

The Complainant is QlikTech International AB, Sweden, represented by Abion AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is xi chen, Hong Kong, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <qlikapp.top> is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 1, 2024. On July 2, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 3, 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 (Unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The
Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 3, 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 in English on July 3, 2024.

On July 3, 2024, the Center informed the Parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. On July 3, 2024, the Complainant requested English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any comment on the Complainant’s submission.

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 in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 11, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 31, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any

response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 2, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed Karen Fong as the sole panelist in this matter on August 12, 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant, a technology company specializing in data analytics and business innovation, has the primary aim to help businesses transform raw data into actionable insights, enabling them to gain a deeper understanding of their operations, customers, and market trends. The Complainant was recognized by Forbes as a Top 10 Innovative Growth Company in 2015. The Complainant’s services are provided under the trade mark QLIK.

The Complainant has various trade mark registrations for QLIK around the world including the following:

- European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 001115948 for QLIK, registered on May 16, 2000;

- United Kingdom Trade Mark Registration No. UK00901115948 for QLIK, registered on May 16, 2000;
and

- United States of America Trade Mark Registration No. 2657563 for QLIK, registered on December 10,
2002.

(Together, individually and collectively referred to as the “Trade Mark”).

The Respondent appears to be based in Hong Kong, China. The disputed domain name was registered on

June 14, 2024. The disputed domain name is inactive.

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.

Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Language of the Proceeding

The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement.

The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be
English for the following main reasons:

page 3

- conducting the proceedings in English will promote efficiency and ensure a timely resolution of the
dispute;

- English is a widely recognized international language, commonly used in business and legal
communications. This will help both Parties understand the proceedings without unnecessary delays;

- both Parties are likely to be familiar with the English language. The Respondent, being based in Hong
Kong, China, operates in a region where English is one of the official languages;

- the disputed domain name incorporates the words “app”, and “top” which are English terms commonly
understood worldwide to mean “application”, and “above”; and

- the Complainant having to translate the Complaint into Chinese would unfairly disadvantage and
burden the Complainant in terms of costs and delay the proceeding and adjudication of this matter.

The Respondent has not challenged the Complainant’s language request and in fact has failed to file a response in either English or Chinese.

In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5.1).

Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for identity or confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s Trade Mark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The Panel finds the entirety of the Trade Mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly,
the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

While the addition of the other term “app” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the domain names and the Trade Mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.8.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

C. 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.

While 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 often impossible 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. 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.

page 4

Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the 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.

Moreover, the nature of the disputed domain name is inherently misleading as it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

D. 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.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name fully incorporates the Trade Mark and
the other term in the disputed domain name “app” is often used in relation to businesses especially tech
businesses, indicating that the Respondent had actual knowledge of and was targeting the Complainant and
the Trade Mark when registering the disputed domain name. The Panel also notes that the disputed domain
name is inactive. 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 would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the
doctrine of passive holding. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the non-use of the
disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith in the circumstances of this proceeding.
Although panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been
considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or
reputation of the complainant’s mark; (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any
evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use; (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of
false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement); and (iv) the implausibility of any
good faith use to which the domain name may be put. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness and reputation of the Trade Mark, the composition of the disputed domain name, the incomplete or false address provided by the Respondent when registering the disputed domain name (the Written Notice was not able to be delivered by the courier service as further information was required), and lack of a response from the Respondent, 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.

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 <qlikapp.top> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Karen Fong/ Karen Fong Sole Panelist Date: September 5, 2024