Qlikautoml.com, Qliktrustscore.com

The timeline behind qlikautoml.com

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

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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. web master, Expired domain caught by auction winner. ***Maybe for sale on Dynadot Marketplace***, mesut erdogan Case No. D2026-1067 1. The Parties The Complainant is QlikTech International AB, Sweden, represented by Abion AB, Sweden. The Respondent is web master, Expired domain caught by auction winner. ***Maybe for sale on Dynadot Marketplace***, Hong Kong, China, and mesut erdogan, Türkiye. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <qlikautoml.com> and <qliktrustscore.com> (the “Domain Names”) are registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 12, 2026. On March 12, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On March 15, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Names which differed from the named Respondent (“web master, Expired domain caught by auction winner. ***Maybe for sale on Dynadot Marketplace***” and “Dynadot Privacy Service, per Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot”) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 16, 2026, with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrar, requesting the Complainant to either file a separate complaint for the Domain Name associated with different underlying registrants or alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in fact the same entity and/or that all Domain Names are under common control. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint March 16, 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”). page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 18, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 7, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 14, 2026. The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on April 17, 2026. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant offers artificial intelligence, data analytics and business intelligence solutions through software to businesses. The Complainant forms part of the QlikTech Group. The QlikTech Group provides various services under the QLIK trademark, including Qlik Trust Score and Qlik AutoML. As of 2026, the QlikTech Group serves more than 40,000 global customers. The Complainant is the owner of multiple trademark registrations for QLIK, QLIK TRUST SCORE, and QLIK AUTOML in different jurisdictions, such as International trademark QLIK with registration number 839118 (Registration Date May 14, 2004). The majority of the Complainant’s trademark registrations predate the registration of the Domain Names. The Domain Names <qliktrustscore.com> and <qlikautoml.com> appear to be registered on July 29, 2025, and September 12, 2022, respectively; the same days that the Complainant applied for trademarks for QLIK TRUST SCORE and QLIK AUTOML before the European Union Intellectual Property Office. The Domain Names have resolved to the registrar page where the Domain Names are offered for sale. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant argues that the Domain Names are under common control of the same person or entity. The Domain Names are similar in structure and spelling. They are registered with the same Registrar. The email addresses provided are generic Gmail addresses not connected to their names. Both Domains Names are offered for sale at auction and have not been used in connection with any bona fide services. Their WhoIs update histories show temporal proximity. Moreover, searches and reverse WhoIs lookup on the email addresses associated with the registrations reveal domain names offered for sale. The Complainant documents registered trademark rights in QLIK, QLIK TRUST SCORE, and QLIK AUTOML. The registered QLIK trademark is clearly recognizable in the Domain Names. The trademark registrations QLIK TRUST SCORE and QLIK AUTOML are identical to the Domain Names. The Complainant argues that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names. There is no evidence that the Respondents are known by the Domain Names. The Complainant has not licensed or authorized the Respondents to use its trademark. The Respondents have not been commonly known by the Domain Names. There is no evidence showing that the Respondents have been using, or preparing to use, the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering or have made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Names. Moreover, the Domain Names are identical to the Complainant’s trademarks which carries a high risk of implied affiliation. The Complainant argues that its trademarks are well-known. The structure of the Domain Names – fully incorporating the Complainant’s trademarks QLIK TRUST SCORE and QLIK AUTOML – show that the Respondent registered the Domain Names having the Complainant and its trademarks in mind. The mere page 3 registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a widely known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. Moreover, the Domain Names were registered on the same day as the Complainant’s European Union Trade Marks for QLIK TRUST SCORE and QLIK AUTOML were applied for. The Domain Names have also been offered for sale at the Registrar parking pages in excess of out-of-pocket costs. Furthermore, the registrants have tried to conceal their identity. B. Respondent The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Consolidation The Complaint was filed in relation to nominally different domain name registrants. The Complainant argues that the domain name registrants are the same entity or under common control. The Complainant requests consolidation of the disputes against the multiple disputed domain name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. In addressing the Complainant’s request, the Panel will consider whether (i) the disputed domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.11.2. As regards the common control, the Panel notes that the Domain Names were registered on the same day as the Complainant applied for European Union Trade Marks, with the same registrar. The registrants have listed false or incomplete contact details, and both Domian Names are offered for sale. All this suggests that the Domain Names are under common control. As regards fairness and equity, the Panel sees no reason why consolidation of the disputes would be unfair or inequitable to any Party. The different domain name registrants have not objected to the Complainant’s consolidation request. Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain name registrants (referred to as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding. 6.2. Substantive Issues A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain names. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Complainant has established registered trademark rights in QLIK, QLIK TRUST SCORE, and QLIK AUTOML. The Domain Names are identical to the Complainant’s QLIK TRUST SCORE and QLIK AUTOML trademarks. For the purpose of assessing the confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel may ignore the Top-Level Domains. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. page 4 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. 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. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Names as a trademark or acquired trademark rights. There is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Names or names corresponding to the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Moreover, the composition of the Domain Names, being identical to the Complainant’s QLIK TRUST SCORE and QLIK AUTOML trademarks, carries a high risk of implied affiliation. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1. Based on the available record, 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. The registration of the Domain Names, identical to the Complainant’s trademarks, on the same day as the Complainant applied for European Union Trade Mark protection for QLIK AUTOML and QLIK TRUST SCORE, proves that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant when the Respondent registered them. The registration is clear evidence of bad faith. Moreover, the Respondent has offered the Domian Names for sale in excess of out-of-pocket costs and the Respondent has tried to conceal its identity. For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. The third element of the Policy has been established. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders the Domain Names <qlikautoml.com> and <qliktrustscore.com> transferred to the Complainant. /Mathias Lilleengen/ Mathias Lilleengen Sole Panelist Date: April 22, 2026

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