Learnqliksense.com

The timeline behind learnqliksense.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION QlikTech International AB v. Vercel Whois, Vercel Inc. Case No. D2026-0691 1. The Parties The Complainant is QlikTech International AB, Sweden, represented by Abion AB, Sweden. The Respondent is Vercel Whois, Vercel Inc., United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <learnqliksense.com> is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 18, 2026. On February 18, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 18, 2026, 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 (The RDAP server redacted the value) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 19, 2026, 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 February 19, 2026. 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 February 26, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 18, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 19, 2026. The Center appointed Mireille Buydens as the sole panelist in this matter on March 24, 2026. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration page 2 of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant, QlikTech International AB, is a company incorporated in Sweden in 1993. It is a leading technology company specializing in data analytics and business intelligence. Its platform 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 notably offers a product named Qlik Sense, a business intelligence and data analytics platform. The Complainant also offers a comprehensive portfolio of courses, certification programs, and training materials specifically designed to support the use and implementation of its products and services. These educational offerings include structured training on Qlik Sense, delivered through both complimentary learning resources and paid subscription-based programs The Complainant has a global presence, with offices in North America (including the United States of America), Canada, Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. The Complainant is the owner of multiple trademark registrations for QLIK and QLIK SENSE (hereafter “the Trademarks” or “the QLIK SENSE Trademark” or “QLIK Trademark”) in different jurisdictions, including: - The European Union trademark registration number 001115948 for QLIK (word mark), registered on May 16, 2000; - The United States trademark registration no. 3114427 for QLIK (word mark), registered on July 11, 2006; - The International trademark registration no. 1236345 for QLIK SENSE (word mark), registered on November 6, 2014; - The European Union trademark registration No. 012889481 for QLIK SENSE (word mark), registered on October 2, 2014; - The United States trademark registration No. 5050190 for QLIK SENSE (word mark), registered on September 27, 2016. The Complainant operates numerous domain names composed of either its trademark QLIK alone, including <qlik.com> (created in 1998), <qlik.net> (created in 2002), and <qlik.us> (created in 2008), or in combination with other terms, such as <qliksense.com> (created in 2014). The Complainant uses these domain names to resolve to its official website, through which it informs Internet users and potential consumers about the QLIK Trademark and its related services, including Qlik Sense. The disputed domain name was created on September 15, 2025. According to the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolves to a website prominently displaying the QLIK and QLIK SENSE Trademarks and purportedly offering training courses. The website contains a pricing page where are directed to a Sign In page requesting the submission of personal data, including their name and email address. At the date of this decision, the disputed domain name still resolves to a website offering training courses for the Qlik software. The page prominently displays “Learn QLIK Sense Through Practice”, proposes to click for taking training courses and displays a “pricing” tab, inviting Internet users to enter their personal data. The website at the disputed domain name further uses the same blue and green colors and the same layout as the Complainant’s website. 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. page 3 First, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the QLIK SENSE Trademark, as it incorporates the Complainant’s QLIK SENSE Trademark, preceded by the term “learn”. Similarly it incorporates the well-known QLIK Trademark, with the addition of the terms “learn” and “sense”. The QLIK SENSE and QLIK Trademarks are clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. The generic Top-Level Domain extension “.com” is a standard registration requirement and may be disregarded when assessing whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant and the Respondent have never had any previous relationships, nor has the Complainant ever granted the Respondent any rights to use the Complainant’s QLIK SENSE or QLIK Trademarks. There is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a website prominently displaying the QLIK and QLIK SENSE Trademarks, where training courses concerning the Qlik software are offered for sale. The content, structure, and overall appearance of the website falsely suggest that the disputed domain name and the corresponding website are operated by, affiliated with, or endorsed by the Complainant. Moreover, by clicking on the heading “Start Learning Today” displayed on the homepage, Internet users are redirected to a page where they are invited to enter personal data, which could facilitate potential phishing activities or other unauthorized uses of such information. Such use of the disputed domain name cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor can it qualify as legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Complainant further points out that the structure of the disputed domain name – incorporating the Complainant’s QLIK and QLIK SENSE Trademarks in their entirety, the first one accompanied by the terms “learn” and “sense”, the second by the term “learn” – reflects the Respondent’s intention to create an association, and a subsequent likelihood of confusion, in Internet users’ minds. The Complainant finally contends that the Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Concerning the registration in bad faith, the Complainant notes that its Trademarks predate the registration of the disputed domain name, which incorporates them in their entirety with the mere addition of the term “learn” (for the QLIK SENSE Trademark) and “learn” and “sense” for the QLIK Trademark. The Complainant is also active in the field of learning and education and offers a wide range of training material and courses in relation to its products, including those related to Qlik Sense. Moreover, the Complainant actively uses the subdomain name <learning.qlik.com>, which it utilizes to direct users to its official website. In view of these facts, it clearly appears that the Respondent knew the Complainant and the QLIK and QLIK SENSE Trademarks at the time it registered the disputed domain name and registered it to create an association with the Complainant and its Trademarks, and a subsequent likelihood of confusion, in Internet users’ minds. Concerning the use in bad faith of the disputed domain name, the Complainant contends that the latter resolves to a website prominently displaying the QLIK and QLIK SENSE Trademarks, purportedly offering training courses, while the Complainant also offers training courses and uses the subdomain name <learning.qlik.com>. Besides, the content, structure, and overall appearance of the website are similar to those of the Complainant. As a result, the Respondent falsely suggests that the disputed domain name and the corresponding website are operated by, affiliated with, or endorsed by the Complainant, and that the services offered are authorized by or otherwise connected with the Complainant’s well-known QLIK and QLIK SENSE Trademarks, which is not the case. Furthermore, the presence of login / sign up sections reinforces the risk that the website was designed to lure Internet users into providing personal and sensitive information, potentially facilitating phishing attacks and the unauthorized use of private data. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 4 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that the Complainant prove each of the following three elements in order to succeed in its Complaint: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the entirety of the QLIK and the QLIK SENSE Trademarks is reproduced within the disputed domain name. The only difference between the QLIK and the QLIK SENSE Trademarks and the disputed domain name is the addition of the term “learn” and “sense” to the QLIK Trademark and the addition of the term “learn” to the QLIK SENSE Trademark. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, here “learn” and “sense” to the QLIK Trademark and “learn” to the QLIK SENSE Trademark, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, t he Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. 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 that 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 3.1, 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. page 5 According to the Complaint, which is not contradicted by the Respondent, the Respondent is not licensed by, nor affiliated with, the Complainant in any way. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor is there any evidence of use or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services. There is no evidence of legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, either. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name reproduces the QLIK and QLIK SENSE Trademarks in their entirety, with the mere addition of the term “learn” to the QLIK SENSE Trademark and the terms “learn” and “sense” to the QLIK Trademark. The term “learn” may refer to learning services, which are also offered by the Complainant under the QLIK SENSE Trademark. The Complainant is also using the subdomain name <learning.qlik.com> for directing users to its official website, where learning services are offered. The Panel also notes the impersonating nature of the content exhibited on the website at the disputed domain name, which prominently displays the QLIK and QLIK SENSE Trademarks, uses the same blue and green colors as the Complainant’s official website and also reproduces the same layout. On the basis of the above, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent is likely to have registered and used the disputed domain name in an attempt to exploit the popularity of the QLIK and CLIQ SENSE Trademarks to attract the attention of Internet users and to mislead them that the disputed domain name and the associated website represent an authorized online location offering training services for the products of the Complainant. Besides, the Panel notes that the website under the disputed domain name does not disclose the lack of any relationship with or authorization by the Complainant, and does not provide any information as to the entity actually operating the website. In the Panel’s view, such conduct does not appear to be legitimate and cannot be regarded as giving rise to rights and legitimate interests of the Respondent. Moreover, panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed impersonation/passing off, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. 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. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. It is clearly to be inferred in the circumstances that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the knowledge of the Complainant’s QLIK and QLIK SENSE Trademarks (prominently used on the website under the disputed domain name) and with the intention of taking dishonest advantage of the goodwill associated with the QLIK and QLIK SENSE Trademarks, which are a trusted reference in the software and data analysis sector. The Panel notes that the Respondent has composed the disputed domain name by combining the Complainant’s QLIK SENSE Trademark with the term “learn”, which is descriptive of the Complainant’s services in relation to its Qlik Sense software. A quick search for the term “qlik ” or “qlik sense” online would have revealed to the Respondent the existence of the Complainant and its Trademarks. As a result, the Panel finds that the Respondent was more likely than not aware of the Complainant’s Trademarks at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1 section 3.2.2. The Panel further infers that the Respondent’s website, which invites Internet users to buy training courses while prominently using the Complainant’s Trademarks and house style, is designed for the purpose of financial gain (inducing Internet users to buy training courses presented as offered or endorsed by the Complainant and purportedly aimed at learning how to use the Complainant’s Qlik Sense software). The Panel finds that, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s page 6 Trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of a product or service on its website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. In the present case, the Panel concludes on the basis of the evidence submitted by the Complainant that the Respondent’s website is intended to impersonate the Complainant: (1) the website prominently displays the QLIK and QLIK SENSE Trademarks; (2) it uses the same blue and green colors as the Complainant’s official website; (3) it reproduces the same layout and type of content; and (4) it does not disclose the lack of any relationship with or authorization by the Complainant, and does not provide any information as to the entity actually operating the website. It results from the foregoing that the website under the disputed domain name is designed to mislead Internet users into falsely believing that they are on a website operated or endorsed by the Complainant, where they can buy learning courses for using the Complainant’s software. This confirms that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of a product or service on its website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of 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 <learnqliksense.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Mireille Buydens/ Mireille Buydens Sole Panelist Date: April 1, 2026

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.