DECISION

 

Qualcomm Incorporated v. Host Master / Njalla Okta LLC

Claim Number: FA2509002177345

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Qualcomm Incorporated ("Complainant"), represented by Diana S. Bae of ArentFox Schiff LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Host Master / Njalla Okta LLC ("Respondent"), Saint Kitts and Nevis.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <qua1comm.com>, registered with Tucows Domains Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 16, 2025; Forum received payment on September 16, 2025.

 

On September 17, 2025, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <qua1comm.com> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains 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").

 

On September 17, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 7, 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@qua1comm.com. Also on September 17, 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 October 8, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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

1.       Respondent's <qua1comm.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's QUALCOMM mark.

 

2.       Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <qua1comm.com> domain name.

 

3.       Respondent registered and uses the <qua1comm.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent did not file a Response.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Qualcomm Incorporated, is in the communications industry and holds a registration for the QUALCOMM mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 1,549,614, registered July 25, 1989).

 

Respondent registered the <qua1comm.com> domain name on August 12, 2025, and uses it to redirect users to Complainant's website.

 

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 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the QUALCOMM mark based upon the registration of the mark with the USPTO. See Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Joyce Cheadle, FA 1819065 (Forum Dec. 28, 2018) (finding that Complainant's registration of the BROOKS mark with the USPTO sufficiently conferred its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

Respondent's <qua1comm.com> domain name uses Complainant's QUALCOMM mark, swapping an "l" with a look-alike "1", and simply adds the ".com" gTLD. These changes do not distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Morgan Stanley v. kenneth taylor / every yo, FA 2092259 (Forum May 1, 2024) (finding morganstaniey and MORGAN STANLEY confusingly similar because "the MORGAN STANLEY mark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name albeit with the letter "l" in the word STANLEY, replaced by the similarly appearing letter "i" and the absence of the space between the two elements in the mark). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <qua1comm.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's QUALCOMM mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests.").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <qua1comm.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's QUALCOMM mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Host Master / Njalla Okta LLC". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name); see also The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. RD BANK /-, FA 1554468 (Forum May 13, 2014) ("WHOIS information for the <rdbank.com> domain name lists 'RD BANK /-' as the domain name's registrant. However, there is nothing in the record that corroborates the WHOIS data's suggestion that Respondent may be commonly known by the <rdbank.com> domain name). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the <qua1comm.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the domain name resolves to Complainant's own website, and Respondent makes no active use of the domain name. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Regeneron Pharm., Inc. v. Reneg, D2023-4391 (WIPO Dec. 27, 2023) (finding no legitimate use where respondent only used the disputed domain name to redirect to complainant's website); see also Teachers Ins. and Annuity Ass'n of Am. V. Wreaks Commc'ns Group (WIPO June 15, 2006) ("passive holding does not constitute 'legitimate non-commercial or fair use'"). 

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent registered the <qua1comm.com> domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the QUALCOMM mark. The Panel agrees, noting the use of the disputed domain name to redirect to Complainant's website, and finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of Complainant's rights, demonstrating further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").

 

Complainant also points out that typosquatting, purposely misspelling a mark in a domain name, constitutes bad faith. See First Republic Bank v. Host Master / Transure Enterprise Ltd, FA 1887104 (Forum Apr. 12, 2020) ("Respondent is also engaging in typosquatting. Respondent formed the at-issue domain name, inter alia, by striking the letter "t" from Complainant's mark. . . . Typosquatting, in itself, indicates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). The Panel thus finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel also finds that Respondent's failure to make an active use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Kohl's Illinois, Inc. v. c/o kohlsdepartmentstore.com; c/o khols.com, FA 1442950 (Forum June 7, 2012) ("Respondent's failure to make an active use of the disputed domain name demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). 

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <qua1comm.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist

Dated: October 9, 2025