The Complainant, QlikTech International AB, is part of the QlikTech Group, a global provider of artificial intelligence, data analytics, and business intelligence solutions. Founded in Sweden in 1993, the Complainant offers software and services under the QLIK® mark, including solutions marketed as Qlik Automate and Qlik Cloud Analytics.<\/p>\n
As of 2025, the QlikTech Group serves over 40,000 customers worldwide and maintains a user community of more than 235,000 members. It operates through a wide network of international partners, including Amazon, Google, and Microsoft. The Group maintains a global presence with offices and associated entities in North America, Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. It is active in both the United States and Turkey through local affiliates and partners.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain names, <qlikcloudanalytics.com> and <qlikautomate.com>, were registered on April 23, 2025, and April 28, 2025, respectively.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain names <\/span><<\/span>qlikcloudanalytics.com<\/span>> and <<\/span>qlikautomate.com>.<\/span><\/p>\n .<\/span><\/p>",
"no_response_filed": " COMPLAINANT:<\/span><\/p>\n 1. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the protected mark<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names <qlikcloudanalytics.com> and <qlikautomate.com> are confusingly similar to its registered QLIK® and QLIK CLOUD® trademarks. It argues that both disputed domain names incorporate the QLIK® mark in its entirety, with the only differences being the addition of descriptive terms directly related to the Complainant’s own services — “cloud analytics” and “automate” — along with the \".com\" top-level domain.<\/p>\n The Complainant emphasizes that these additional terms do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, particularly as “Qlik Cloud Analytics” and “Qlik Automate” are names of actual services it provides. It also notes that it has filed EU trademark applications for QLIK CLOUD ANALYTICS® and QLIK AUTOMATE® on the same dates as the registrations of the corresponding disputed domain names.<\/p>\n Citing WIPO Overview 3.0, Section 1.8, the Complainant submits that the recognizable presence of its QLIK® mark within the disputed domain names is sufficient to establish confusing similarity. Furthermore, the inclusion of the generic top-level domain “.com” does not negate the similarity, as it is considered a standard registration requirement and is disregarded in the analysis under the first element.<\/p>\n Accordingly, the Complainant maintains that it has satisfied the first element of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.<\/p>\n 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names <qlikcloudanalytics.com> and <qlikautomate.com>.<\/p>\n First, the Complainant confirms that it has never authorized or licensed the Respondent to use the QLIK® trademark in any form, including within the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n Second, the Complainant submits that there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names. Online searches for the terms “qlik cloud analytics”, “qlikcloudanalytics”, “qlik automate”, and “qlikautomate” yield results that relate exclusively to the Complainant, its website, and its services. <\/p>\n The Complainant argues that the Respondent could have easily conducted such searches before registering the disputed domain names and would have discovered the Complainant’s longstanding trademark rights and business operations.<\/p>\n Further, searches for registered trademarks containing the disputed domain names terms reveal only the Complainant’s pending trademark applications for QLIK CLOUD ANALYTICS® and QLIK AUTOMATE®. No trademarks are registered in the name of the Respondent. Notably, both disputed domain names were registered on the exact dates that the Complainant filed these applications, suggesting prior knowledge and intent to capitalize on the Complainant’s rights.<\/p>\n The Complainant discovered that the disputed domain names resolved to GoDaddy parking pages listing the disputed domain names for sale at a fixed price of USD 2,988, both at the time of discovery and at the time of the Complaint and Amended Complaint filings. The Complainant argues this demonstrates that the disputed domain names were registered with the intent to sell, not for any legitimate use<\/p>\n Under WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, paragraph 2.5.2, the Complainant emphasizes that there is no evidence of use or preparations to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial purpose. The structure of the disputed domain names, which combine the well-known QLIK® trademark with terms directly associated with the Complainant’s services, supports an inference of intent to create confusion among Internet users.<\/p>\n Additionally, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1, affirms that even domain names containing a trademark plus additional terms cannot constitute fair use if they imply affiliation or endorsement by the trademark owner.<\/p>\n Finally, the Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent on May 7, 2025, via available contact forms and the registrar, followed by a reminder on May 19, 2025. The Respondent did not respond.<\/p>\n Accordingly, the Complainant maintains that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) and paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.<\/p>\n 3. The disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names <qlikcloudanalytics.com> and <qlikautomate.com> in bad faith, in violation of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.<\/p>\n Registration in Bad Faith<\/em> The Complainant argues that it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of its rights, especially given the Complainant’s online presence and the fact that prior UDRP panels have recognized QLIK® as a well-known trademark. The timing of the disputed domain names registrations—on the exact same days that the Complainant filed EU trademark applications for QLIK CLOUD ANALYTICS® and QLIK AUTOMATE®—further supports the assertion that the Respondent acted with knowledge of the Complainant and its marks.<\/p>\n The Complainant also points out that the Respondent is the subject of multiple prior UDRP decisions, establishing a pattern of abusive conduct.<\/p>\n Use in Bad Faith<\/em><\/p>\n Further, the composition of the disputed domain names—each incorporating the QLIK® mark and additional terms directly referring to the Complainant’s services—creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s brand. This is consistent with bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.<\/p>\n The Complainant highlights that the Respondent failed to reply to a cease-and-desist letter or to offer any credible rationale for registering the disputed domain names. The use of a privacy shield to conceal the Respondent’s identity further supports an inference of bad faith.<\/p>\n In conclusion, the Complainant submits that the Respondent’s actions demonstrate a clear intent to exploit the Complainant’s trademark for commercial gain, and therefore satisfy the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.<\/p>\n Therefore, the Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain names should be transferred to it. RESPONDENT:<\/span> <\/p>",
"rights": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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).<\/p>",
"no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"bad_faith": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"procedural_factors": " 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.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Barbora Donathová"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-06-26 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant, QlikTech International AB, has submitted evidence of its ownership of registered trademark rights in the QLIK® and QLIK CLOUD® marks in multiple jurisdictions worldwide. These registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain names <qlikcloudanalytics.com> and <qlikautomate.com>, which were registered on April 23 and April 28, 2025, respectively.<\/p>\n Notable trademark registrations include:<\/p>\n International Reg. No. 839118 for QLIK® (designating Turkey), registered May 14, 2004;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n EU Reg. No. 001115948 for QLIK®, registered May 16, 2000;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n U.S. Reg. No. 2657563 for QLIK®, registered December 10, 2002; and<\/p>\n<\/li>\n EU Reg. No. 014437982 for QLIK CLOUD®, registered November 19, 2015.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n The Complainant has also filed pending trademark applications for QLIK CLOUD ANALYTICS® and QLIK AUTOMATE®, which were submitted on the same days that the corresponding disputed domain names were registered.<\/p>\n The QLIK® mark has been acknowledged as well-known in prior UDRP decisions (see QlikTech International AB v. BENZAKOUR ABDELALI<\/em>, WIPO Case No. D2024-5123). The Complainant operates its official website at <qlik.com> (registered March 17, 1998) and maintains a portfolio of domain names incorporating its trademarks. These domains are used to promote the Complainant’s services and maintain its online presence, including through active social media platforms.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"qlikcloudanalytics.com": "TRANSFERRED",
" qlikautomate.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}
The Complainant’s QLIK® trademark is well known and predates the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names by many years. The Respondent has never been authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark, which is also registered in Turkey—where the Respondent is based.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain names currently resolve to GoDaddy parking pages where they are offered for sale at a price of USD 2,988, indicating intent to profit from the Complainant’s trademark. This, the Complainant argues, constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy.<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>\n
NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/span><\/p>\n\n