Qualcomm Incorporated v. Qualcomm Tech
Claim Number: FA2207002004546
Complainant is Qualcomm Incorporated (“Complainant”), represented by Diana S. Bae of ArentFox Schiff LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Qualcomm Tech (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <qualcommtechs.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 16, 2022; the Forum received payment on July 16, 2022.
On July 19, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <qualcommtechs.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On July 22, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 11, 2022 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@qualcommtechs.com. Also on July 22, 2022, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On August 16, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it operates in the wireless technologies industry. Complainant has rights in the QUALCOMM mark through its registration with multiple trademark agencies, including in the United States in 1990. The mark is famous.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its QUALCOMM mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety while merely adding the generic/descriptive term “techs” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its mark in any way. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead passes off as Complainant; the resolving website mimics Complainant’s website, displaying Complainant’s mark, logo, and tagline; it displays links to Complainant’s own social media platforms; and it purports to offer unrelated products and services.
According to Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent attracts users for commercial gain while passing off as Complainant by offering unrelated products and services and phishing for users’ personal information. Additionally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark QUALCOMM and uses it to operate in the wireless technology industry.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to 1990.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2022.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The resolving website mimics Complainant’s website, displaying Complainant’s mark, logo, and tagline; it displays links to Complainant’s own social media platforms; and it purports to offer unrelated products and services.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s QUALCOMM mark in its entirety while merely adding the generic/descriptive term “techs” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), incorporating a mark in its entirety and adding a generic term fails to distinguish a disputed domain name from a protected mark. See Dell Inc. v. pushpender chauhan, FA 1784548 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“Respondent merely adds the term ‘supports’ and a ‘.org’ gTLD to the DELL mark. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s DELL mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Further, the addition of the gTLD “.com” is irrelevant when considering whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a protected mark. See Abt Elecs., Inc. v. Ricks, FA 904239 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (“The Panel also finds that Respondent’s <abt.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s ABT mark since addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) is irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.”). Therefore the Panel finds that the <qualcommtechs.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s QUALCOMM mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: absent a response, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Where the WHOIS is related to the disputed domain name, the Panel may still find the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name if the respondent lacks authorization to use the complainant’s mark and the respondent fails to provide affirmative evidence in support of its identity. See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding that, although the respondent listed itself as “Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund” in the WHOIS contact information, it did not provide any affirmative evidence to support this identity; combined with the fact that the complainant claimed it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Here, the WHOIS information of record lists the registrant of the disputed domain name as “Qualcomm Tech” but Respondent provides no affirmative evidence in support of this identity and no evidence in the record suggests Respondent is authorized to use the QUALCOMM mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant and purport to offer unrelated products and services: the resolving website mimics Complainant’s website, displaying Complainant’s mark, logo, and tagline; and it displays links to Complainant’s own social media platforms. Impersonating a complainant in a confusingly similar domain name’s resolving webpage is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant’s mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant by mimicking Complainant’s legitimate website. Consumers visiting the resolving website are likely to be confused as to whether Respondent and/or its website is affiliated in some way with Complainant; and/or the disputed domain name or the associated website are endorsed, authorized, or sponsored by Complainant, none of which are true. This is a form of bad faith use of the disputed domain name. See Bank of America Corp. v. Out Island Props., Inc., FA 154531 (Forum June 3, 2003) (bad faith established “[s]ince the disputed domain names contain entire versions of Complainant’s marks and are used for something completely unrelated to their descriptive quality, a consumer searching for Complainant would become confused as to Complainant’s affiliation with the resulting search engine website.”); see also Indeed, Inc. v. Zhiteng Sun, FA 1751940 (Forum Nov. 1, 2017) (finding that the respondent's use of <lndeed.net> to misrepresent itself as the complainant by imitating the complainant’s website design supported a finding of bad faith). Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the resolving website mimics Complainant’s website, displaying Complainant’s mark, logo, and tagline; and it displays links to Complainant’s own social media platforms. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <qualcommtechs.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: August 17, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page