UDRP Filed Against Qualcomm’s IMOD.com Domain Name (Update)

I don’t regularly see UDRPs filed against domain names owned by large corporations. It looks like a company has filed a UDRP against IMOD.com, a domain name owned by Qualcomm. The UDRP was filed at the World Intellectual Property Organization, and it is UDRP case D2016-1327.

The IMOD.com domain name was created in April of 2002, although it had previously had been registered before that and later expired. According to DomainTools Whois History Tool, the earliest entry showing Qualcomm as registrant is from July of 2006. The previous Whois History entry is from 2005, so Qualcomm may have owned it before this date.

If you visit IMOD.com, you are taken to a Qualcomm Mirasol page within the Qualcomm website. I did a Google search for Qualcomm and IMOD to see what the relationship is, and I learned that IMOD stands for “interferometric modulation.” You can read more about IMOD and Qualcomm’s Mirosol technology on this page within the Qualcomm website.

The complainant in this UDRP filing is an entity called American Franchise Marketing Limited. I was curious about the complainant in this UDRP and its connection to IMOD, so I did a Google search for the company name and IMOD. I found a trademark listing for “IMOD” on the TMDB.EU website, and it is listed as “European Community Trademark, no. 005126561, Word mark.” It looks like the trademark was registered in 2009, although I don’t know the history of the usage of the trademark.

One of the three aspects a complainant needs to prove is that the domain name “has been registered and is being used in bad faith.” I have no idea why this complainant thinks that Qualcomm registered and used the domain name in bad faith, since it seems very clear to me that Qualcomm is using it legitimately. I would not be surprised to see a RDNH finding here given the circumstances that I am able to see.

As with all UDRP proceedings like this, I will keep my eye on the decision to see if there is more to it than meets the eye.

Update: According to UDRPSearch.com, the complaint has been denied. The decision has not yet been published.