Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-107519

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name (the "Domain Name").

The Complainant is the owner of numerous registered trade marks around the world that comprise or incorporate the terms "QLIK” and “QLIK SENSE”. 

They include:

(i)        European Union trade mark no. 012889481 with a filing date of 20 May 2014 and a registration date of 2 October 2014 for QLIK SENSE as a word mark in classes 9, 35, 42;

(ii)       International trade mark no. 1236345 (based upon the European Union trade mark identified at (i) above) with a registration date of 6 November 2014 for QLIK SENSE as a word mark in classes 9, 35, 42 and which has proceeded to registration in over 20 territories; and

(iii)      United States trade mark no. 5050190 with a filing date of 20 May 2014 and registration date of 27 September 2016 for QLIK SENSE as a standard character mark in class 9.

FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT

The QlikTech Group operates in the field of artificial intelligence, data analytics and business intelligence solutions, offering software to businesses worldwide. Through its platform, the QlikTech Group enables businesses to transform raw data into actionable insights, enabling them to gain a deeper understanding of their operations, customers, and market trends. The Complainant was founded in Sweden in 1993, and forms part of the QlikTech Group.

As of 2025, the QlikTech Group serves more than 40,000 global customers and has more than 235,000 community members. The QlikTech Group also maintains a network of international partners, including Amazon, Google and Microsoft.

The QlikTech Group has a global presence, with offices in North America, Canada, Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Africa, where it has an active presence through associated companies.

One of the products offered by the QlikTech Group is QLIK SENSE. QLIK SENSE is a data analytics platform and a data visualization solution, developed by the Complainant and launched in 2014. QLIK SENSE facilitates the analysis and gathering of information, by enabling data integration from different sources, whether databases, operational systems, data sheets or web data.

The Complainant owns numerous domain names composed of either its trademark QLIK alone, including <qlik.com> (created on 17 March 1998) or in combination with other terms, such as <qlikview.com> (created on 10 April 2000). The Complainant also owns numerous domain names composed of its trademark QLIK SENSE alone, including <qliksense.com> (created on 15 May 2014) and <qliksense.org> (created on 15 May 2014) and uses these domain names to resolve to its official website.

The Domain Name was registered on 26 January 2025.

At the time the Complainant found out about the Domain Name on 8 April 2025, and at all times up to the filing of the Complainant, the Domain Name has resolved to parking page with “pay per click” (“PPC”) links. The PPC page associated to the Domain Name displays relevant sponsored links which clearly refer to the Complainant and its business activities, such as “Analytics Software”, “Business Intelligence” and “Data Visualisation”. Upon clicking these links, Internet users are invited to visit other websites related to “Management Software”, among others.

In addition, when the Complainant found out about the registration of the Domain Name, it contacted the Registrant through a Cease-and-Desist letter to the Registrar, asking the latter to forward the letter to the Registrant. The Complainant sent further reminders on April 21, 2025, and April 24, 2025, but there was no response.

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the Domain Name should be transferred to it.

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.

The Complainant has demonstrated that it has registered trade mark rights in the term QLIK SENSE, and the Domain Name can only sensibly be read as that term combined with the ".online" new gTLD.  Accordingly, the Complainant’s trade mark is clearly recognisable in the Domain Name. This is sufficient for a finding of confusing similarity under the Policy (see section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). The Complainant has, therefore, satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

The Panel is also satisfied that the Domain Name inherently impersonates the Complainant and finds on the balance of probabilities that this impersonation is deliberate on the part of the Respondent.  In this respect, the Domain Name takes the form <[Complainant's trade mark].[gTLD]>, where the trade mark does not have any obvious meaning other than as the Complainant’s trade mark and the gTLD is an ordinary English word that does not signal a lack of association with the Complainant.

There is no right or legitimate interest in registering and holding a domain name that impersonates a trade mark holder, and such registration and use is in bad faith. (On the issue of legitimate rights and interests where a domain name takes the form <[trade mark].[gTLD]> see also section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).

Further, the Panel is satisfied that the use made of the Domain Name falls within the scope of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Further, although the name of the Registrant suggests it is a privacy service, the Registrar has confirmed that this is the actual name of the Registrant in response to the UDRP Provider’s registrar verification request. Furthermore, there are multiple UDRP decisions in which domain names registered in the name of the identified registrant have been held to have taken unfair advantage of the trade mark rights of others. Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that this is a case where either (a) a third party privacy service is being used to disguise the true identity of the Respondent, which is of itself an indicator of bad faith, and/or (b) the Registrant has a history of registration and use of domain names in bad faith.

The Complainant has, therefore, satisfied the requirements of paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy.