DECISION

 

Qorvo US, Inc. v. liu liu

Claim Number: FA2504002149704

PARTIES

Complainant is Qorvo US, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Chris Civil of Cobalt LLP, California, USA. Respondent is liu liu ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <qorvogan.com>, registered with Dominet (HK) Limited.

 

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.

 

Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 9, 2025; Forum received payment on April 9, 2025.

 

On April 11, 2025, Dominet (HK) Limited confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <qorvogan.com> domain name is registered with Dominet (HK) Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dominet (HK) Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dominet (HK) Limited 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 April 14, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 5, 2025 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@qorvogan.com. Also on April 14, 2025, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On May 6, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

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 asserts trademark rights in QORVO.  Complainant holds a national registration for that trademark.  Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark.  

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

B.       Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that:

1.       Complainant manufactures and sells semiconductors, radio-frequency systems, and related products by reference to the trademark, QORVO;

2.       Complainant is the owner of United States Patent & Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 7,032,467, registered April 18, 2023, for the QORVO trademark; and

3.       the disputed domain name was registered on February 27, 2025, using a privacy service to shield the name of Respondent; and

4.       at April 9, 2025, the disputed domain name was not in use but previously the name resolved to a website which appeared to offer for sale the clothing and replicate the site of a well-known UK fashion brand.

 

DISCUSSION

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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.

 

It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)).  Complainant therefore has rights since it provides proof of registration of the trademark QORVO with the USPTO, a national trademark authority.

 

For the purposes of comparison of the disputed domain name with the trademark, the gTLD, ".com" can be disregarded (see, for example, Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Domain Admin. Ltd., FA 1106369 (Forum Dec. 31, 2007)). The disputed domain name then differs from the trademark by addition of the letters "gan" to the trademark. Complainant provides evidence that "GaN" refers to the compound gallium nitride ("Ga" is the chemical symbol for gallium; "N" is the symbol for nitrogen), a fundamental component and building block of electronics and semiconductors, something which Complainant explains at its own website.  The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark (see, for example, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) finding that "[w]here a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.").

 

Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

 

(i)                      before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

 

(ii)                      you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

 

(iii)                      you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000‑0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000)).

 

The name of the domain name owner does not carry any suggestion that Respondent might be commonly known by the domain name. There is no evidence that Respondent has any trademark rights of its own. The evidence accompanying the Complaint supports the conclusion that the disputed domain name is not in use, or that has been used to divert internet users to a website promoting goods having no conceivable connection with Complainant's business under the trademark.  Further, Complainant provides evidence that the domain name is associated with the use of malware.

 

The Panel finds that a prima facie case has been made that Respondent has no rights or interest in the domain name (see, for example, Huron Consulting Group Inc. v. Michael Katka, FA2401002079444 (Forum February 8, 2024) ("Use of a domain name to redirect users to unrelated third-party sites (whether or not they compete with Complainant) is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use"); Cerner Innovation Inc. v. zhang wei, FA2503002144084 (Forum April 2, 2025); Ceridian Corp. v. Versata Software, Inc., FA 1259927 (Forum June 23, 2009) finding that use of a domain name to direct Internet users to a website which attempts to download computer viruses "failed to create any semblance of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)").

 

The onus shifts to Respondent. In the absence of a Response, the Panel finds that Respondent has not discharged the onus and finds the Respondent has no rights or interests.

 

Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and used in bad faith.  Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established.  

 

With the possible exception of paragraph 4(b)(iv), the Panel finds that those scenarios are less apt than the straightforward determination in this case of registration in bad faith and use in bad faith.

 

Complainant provides evidence that the trademark is an invented word. It has been used in a very specific field of business. The fact that the domain name adds a term of art to the trademark is of itself sufficient evidence that Respondent targeted Complainant and its business and registered the name in bad faith.

 

Furthermore, Respondent originally used the domain name in connection with a website that appeared to sell unauthorized and possibly counterfeit clothing. Additional evidence is that the domain name is linked to malware. The Panel finds proof of use in bad faith (see, for example, eNom, Incorporated v. Muhammad Enoms General delivery / Enoms.com, FA 1621663 (Forum July 2, 2015) ("… Respondent has used the disputed domain name to install malware on Internet users' devices. The Panel finds that this is bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."); and, were it necessary, H-D Michigan, LLC v. Ross, FA 1250712 (Forum Apr. 23, 2009) finding that the respondent's selling of counterfeit products demonstrates bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the third and final element of the Policy.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <qorvogan.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED to Complainant.

 

 

 

Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist

May 7, 2025