Qorvocareers.com

The timeline behind qorvocareers.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Qorvo US, Inc. v. Kate Valquez / rahnchgroupllc Claim Number: FA2509002174773 PARTIES Complainant is Qorvo US, Inc. ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Chris Civil of Cobalt LLP, United States. Respondent is Kate Valquez / rahnchgroupllc ("Respondent"), United States. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <qorvocareers.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc. PANEL 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. David E. Sorkin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 2, 2025; Forum received payment on September 2, 2025. On September 3, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by email to Forum that the <qorvocareers.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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"). Complainant submitted an Amended Complaint on September 4, 2025. On September 5, 2025, Forum served the Complaint (both versions, the Complaint and the Amended Complaint) and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 25, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@qorvocareers.com. Also on September 5, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On September 26, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist. The Panel issued a procedural order on September 26, 2025, requesting Complainant to provide a copy of a decision that was cited on page 10 of the Complaint and Amended Complaint. A response to the procedural order was received from Complainant on September 26, 2025. Complainant also stated, in an accompanying email message, that it had inadvertently substituted a document from a related but different proceeding when it submitted the Amended Complaint. Complainant apologized for the oversight and attached a corrected version. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, Forum's Supplemental Rules, and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant provides integrated circuits and related products and services, with quarterly revenue of nearly $1 billion. Complainant has used QORVO in connection with its products and services since 2015. Complainant owns trademark registrations in jurisdictions throughout the world, including longstanding United States registrations for QORVO in standard character and stylized form. Complainant asserts that the QORVO mark is well known, citing prior decisions under the Policy, and that "Qorvo" has no recognized meaning other than in reference to Complainant. The disputed domain name <qorvocareers.com> was registered in August 2025. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. The domain name resolves to a parked page containing pay-per-click advertisements. Complainant notes that the disputed domain name has active MX (mail exchanger) records, and expresses concern that Respondent will use it to impersonate Complainant in support of a fraudulent phishing scheme aimed at individuals seeking employment. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, is not affiliated with Complainant, and is not licensed or permitted to use Complainant's mark. Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <qorvocareers.com> is confusingly similar to its QORVO mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: CORRECTED COMPLAINT As described above, Complainant inadvertently substituted a document from a different proceeding for the Amended Complaint, and later requested to replace it with the correct version. The Panel has reviewed the Corrected Amended Complaint and determined that it is substantively identical to the Complaint that was previously served on Respondent, but for the substitution of Respondent's identity and contact information as confirmed by the registrar. The Panel finds that Respondent has not been prejudiced by the oversight, and accepts the Corrected Amended Complaint. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: CITED AUTHORITY The Complaint contends that Complainant's QORVO mark is well known, supporting that contention with citations to several prior decisions rendered under the Policy. It also includes the following statement (in all three versions of the Complaint): And, other Panels have found Complainant's QORVO Mark to be widely recognized by general consumers. See Qorvo US, Inc. v. Ye Song Han, D2023-0016 (IDRC Dec. 7, 2023). Being unable to locate the decision referred to in the above statement or even to determine the meaning of "IDRC," the Panel issued a procedural order requesting Complainant to provide a copy of, and if available, a link to, the Ye Song Han decision. In response, Complainant submitted a copy of the decision and stated that it was not aware of a URL where the decision may be accessed publicly. The decision is in Korean, and Complainant also included an English translation, provided by Complainant's local counsel in Korea, of the passage referenced in the Complaint. The decision supplied by Complainant appears to be genuine, and the partial English translation appears to be accurate. The Panel was subsequently able to locate a copy of the decision on the website of the Korean Internet Address Dispute Resolution Committee ("IDRC"), https://www.idrc.or.kr/, and a machine translation of the decision performed using Google Translate appears to be consistent with the partial translation supplied by Complainant. Obviously it would have been helpful for Complainant to have identified the Korean IDRC decision more completely in its original submission, and to have included a copy of the decision and an English translation thereof, especially since it appears that Complainant has been citing this decision as authority in multiple proceedings while under the impression that it was not publicly available. Nonetheless, the Panel does not find any harm to have resulted from these omissions. FINDINGS The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name <qorvocareers.com> incorporates Complainant's registered QORVO trademark, adding the generic term "careers" and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Qorvo US, Inc. v. Candace17562, FA 2152362 (Forum May 20, 2025) (finding <qorvoservices.com> confusingly similar to QORVO); Qorvo US, Inc. v. Sft Innovation / proficient trade, FA 2150472 (Forum May 9, 2025) (finding <qorvocapital.com> confusingly similar to QORVO); Credit Karma, LLC v. Karlie Ayer / C Karma J / Megan Granat / Karma Kredit, FA 2111319 (Forum Sept. 11, 2024) (finding <creditkarmacareers.com> confusingly similar to CREDIT KARMA). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. It resolves to a parked page composed of pay-per-click links, none of which appear to have any direct connection to Complainant or its industry. A message at the footer of the page states that it "was generated by the domain owner using Sedo Domain Parking." Apart from this link page, Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the domain name, nor to have engaged in preparations for such use. Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that a domain name was acquired "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name." Under paragraph 4(b)(iii), bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location." Respondent used a privacy registration service and what appears to the Panel to be at least partially fictitious underlying registration information to register a domain name incorporating Complainant's fanciful mark. The only apparent use of the domain name has been for a parked page composed of pay-per-click links. Respondent has failed to come forward with any explanation for the selection of the domain name or its intended use. Under the circumstances, the Panel considers it reasonable to infer that Respondent registered the domain name intending to use it in a manner calculated to create and exploit confusion with Complainant and its mark, likely by using the domain name in support of a fraudulent phishing scheme, generating revenue from the pay-per-click link page, or offering the domain name for sale to Complainant or a competitor; and that Respondent is maintaining the domain name for one or more of those purposes. See, e.g., Health Catalyst, Inc. v. Javid Henry, FA 2158701 (Forum July 1, 2025) (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Qorvo US, Inc. v. Candace17562, supra (same); AbbVie Biotechnology, Ltd. & AbbVie Inc v. bangers anonymous, FA 2138227 (Forum Feb. 25, 2025) (same); Credit Karma, LLC v. Karlie Ayer / C Karma J / Megan Granat / Karma Kredit, supra (same). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. DECISION Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <qorvocareers.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David E. Sorkin, Panelist Dated: September 27, 2025 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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