Complainants are Facebook, Inc., WhatsApp Inc., Instagram, LLC, and Oculus VR, LLC of Menlo Park, California, United States of America ("United States"), represented by Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France.
Respondent is Domain Admin / This Domain is For Sale, HugeD of Denver, Colorado, United States, internally represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with DropC 417 LLC. The disputed domain name is registered with DropC 801 LLC. The disputed domain name is registered with DomainGetter LLC. The disputed domain name is registered with DropC 807 LLC. The disputed domain name is registered with DropC 969 LLC. The disputed domain name is registered with DropC 865 LLC. The disputed domain name is registered with TradeNamed LLC. The disputed domain name is registered with DropC 488 LLC. The disputed domain name is registered with DropC 706 LLC. The disputed domain name is registered with TurnCommerce, Inc. DBA NameB. The disputed domain name is registered with DropC 817 LLC. The disputed domain name is registered with D LLC. The disputed domain name is registered with DropC 1026 LLC. The disputed domain name is registered with DropC 1066 LLC. The disputed domain name is registered with DropC 505 LLC. The disputed domain name is registered with DropC 562 LLC. The disputed domain name is registered with DropC 413 LLC. The disputed domain name is registered with DropC 951 LLC. The disputed domain name is registered with DropC 598 LLC. The disputed domain name is registered with D LLC. The disputed domain name is registered with WhatIsYourDomain LLC. The disputed domain name is registered with DropC 1111 LLC. The disputed domain name is registered with DropC 425 LLC. The disputed domain names will collectively be hereinafter referred to as the "disputed domain names". The Registrars will collectively be hereinafter referred to as the "Registrars". 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on January 24, 2018. On January 25, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On January 26, 2018, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that the 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").
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 9, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 1, 2018. The Response was filed with the Center on March 1, 2018.
The Center appointed Lorelei Ritchie as the sole panelist in this matter on March 20, 2018. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background
Complainants are related companies. Specifically, Complainant Facebook, Inc. is the parent company, of which Complainants WhatsApp Inc., Instagram, LLC, and Oculus VR, LLC are wholly owned subsidiaries ("Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, Octulus" and collectively, the "Complainants"). Prior UDRP panels have found under such circumstances that it is appropriate for companies to bring a joint complaint where:
(i) the complainants either have a specific common grievance against the respondent, or the respondent has engaged in common conduct that has affected the complainants' individual rights in a similar fashion; (ii) it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the consolidation; or in the case of complaints brought (whether or not filed by multiple complainants) against more than one respondent, where (a) the domain names or the websites to which they resolve are subject to common control, and (b) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties.
See section 4.11.1 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0") (discussing when it is appropriate for multiple companies to serve as joint complainants). The Panel finds that these criteria are satisfied and it is appropriate to have joint Complainants in this proceeding. Seealso eBay Inc., PayPal Inc. v. Rene Rene/Wuxi Yilian LLC, WIPO Case No. D2015-0010 and Altria Group, Inc. and Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Leonard Di Bari,WIPO Case No. D2014-0181, finding consolidation appropriate for a parent and wholly-owned subsidiaries.
Facebook is a provider of online social networking services. Launched in 2004, Facebook now has 2 billion active users. Its main website is "", currently ranked the third most visited in the United States and in the world.
Instagram, is one of the world's leading online photo and video social networking apps. Launched in 2010, Instagram was acquired by Facebook in 2012. Instagram now has over 800 million active monthly users, and its main website, "", is the 17th most visited in the world.
WhatsApp is one of the world's most popular messaging apps. Launched in 2009, WhatsApp was acquired by Facebook in 2014. WhatsApp now has over 1 billion monthly active users.
Oculus is a virtual reality technology company. Founded in 2012, Oculus was acquired by Facebook in 2014. The main website for Oculus is located at "".
Complainants own trademarks for the marks FB, FACEBOOK, INSTAGRAM, WHATSAPP, OCULUS VR, and OCULUS. These include, among others, U.S. Registration No. 4659777 for FB (Registered December 23, 2014); U.S. Registration No. 3041791 for FACEBOOK (Registered January 10, 2006); U.S. Registration No. 4146057 for INSTAGRAM (Registered May 22, 2012); U.S. Registration No. 3939463 for WHATSAPP (Registered April 5, 2011); U.S. Registration No. 4424543 for OCULUS VR (Registered October 29, 2013); and U.S. Registration No. 4891157 for OCULUS (Registered January 26, 2016).
A number of prior UDRP panels have found Complainants' marks to be strong and well-known. See, for example, Facebook, Inc. v. Emma Boiton, WIPO Case No. D2016-0623 (finding FACEBOOK to be "one of the most famous online trademarks in the world"); Instagram, LLC v. Zhou Murong, WIPO Case No. D2014‑1550(finding INSTAGRAM to have "a strong presence online"); WhatsApp Inc. v. Francisco Costa, WIPO Case No. D2015-0909 (finding WHATSAPP to be "well-known"); and Oculus VR, LLC v. Levickii Vitalii Jurevich, Levickii Vitalii Jurevich, Levickaja Valentina Vasilevna / Privacy protection service - , WIPO Case No. D2016-2284 (finding rights in OCULUS).
The disputed domain names were registered between March 12, 2012 and August 16, 2017. The disputed domain names are linked to websites that offer the domain names for sale. Respondent has no affiliation with Complainants, nor any license to use their marks. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
Complainants contend that (i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainants' trademarks, (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.
Specifically, Complainants contends that they own the marks FB, FACEBOOK, INSTAGRAM, WHATSAPP, OCULUS, and OCULUS VR. Complainants contend that these are well-known marks and that Respondent has incorporated versions of these marks or misspellings thereof into the disputed domain names, and otherwise merely added generic or descriptive terms to them. Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names, and rather has registered and is using them in bad faith, having simply acquired the disputed domain names with an intent to sell them for profit. Complainants further allege that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct that establishes bad faith under the UDRP. B. Respondent
Respondent replied to Complainants' contentions with a statement that "Respondent agrees with Complainant's request in this matter and askes [sic] WIPO and the Panel to transfer these domains to Complainant." 6. Discussion and Findings A. Preliminary Statement
The Panel notes that Respondent has given a statement with a consent to remedy in this proceeding. In this regard, the Panel turns to Section 4.10 of WIPO Overview 3.0, which states, in relevant part, that "In some cases, despite such respondent consent, a panel may in its discretion still find it appropriate to proceed to a substantive decision on the merits." Reasons may include that "the complainant has not agreed to accept such consent decision and has expressed a preference for a recorded decision", or "where the panel finds a broader interest in recording a substantive decision on the merits – notably recalling UDRP paragraph 4(b)(ii) discussing a pattern of bad faith conduct." In this regard, after receiving Respondent's statement on March 1, 2018, the Center contacted the parties the next day to ask "[i]f the parties wish to explore settlement options." On March 8, 2018, Complainants responded that "it would be appropriate for the Panel to provide a full decision." Under the circumstances of the proceeding, as discussed herein, the Panel finds it appropriate to discuss and render a full decision. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This Panel must first determine whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainants has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
The Panel finds that they are. A number of the disputed domain names contain obvious misspellings of Complainants' well-known marks FACEBOOK, FB, INSTAGRAM, and WHATSAPP. These include the disputed domain names , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .
This indicates a practice commonly known as "typosquatting," where a domain name registrant deliberately registers common misspellings of a well-known mark in order to divert consumer traffic. Other UDRP panels have routinely found typosquatted domain names like these to be "confusingly similar" for purposes of a finding under the UDRP. See E, Inc. v. Yingkun Guo, dba This domain name is 4 sale, WIPO Case No. D2006-0694 (); Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. John Zuccarini, Cupcake City and Cupcake Patrol,WIPO Case No. D2001-0489 (, , ); See also Credit Karma, Inc. v. Domain Admin, WhoIs Privacy Corp.,WIPO Case No. D2017-0194 ().
The remainder of the disputed domain names incorporate in full Complainants' OCULUS and OCULUS VR marks, and merely add dictionary terms such as "gaming," "movies," "sex," (and a telescoped abbreviation of "sex"), and "network. These include , , , , , and . Numerous UDRP panels have agreed that supplementing or modifying a trademark with dictionary words does not make a domain name any less "identical or confusingly similar" for purposes of satisfying this first prong of paragraph (4)(a)(i) of the Policy. See, for example, Microsoft Corporation v. StepWeb,WIPO Case No. D2000-1500 (); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Horoshiy, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2004-0620 (); General Electric Company v. Recruiters,WIPO Case No. D2007-0584 ().
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainants have rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel next considers whether Complainants have shown that Respondent has no "rights or legitimate interests" as must be proven to succeed in a UDRP dispute. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy gives examples that might show rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. These examples include: (i) use of the domain name "in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services"; (ii) demonstration that respondent has been "commonly known by the domain name"; or (iii) "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".
No evidence has been presented to this Panel that might support a claim of Respondent's rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and Respondent has no license from, or other affiliation with, Complainants.
Therefore, this Panel finds that Complainants has provided sufficient evidence of Respondent's lack of "rights or legitimate interests" in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy which Respondent has not rebutted, but rather has "agree[d] with Complainant's request in this matter." D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
There are several ways that a complainant can demonstrate that domain names were registered and used in bad faith. Complainants have submitted evidence that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering similar domain names, thereby evidencing bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(ii). In addition to the multitude of domain names and multiple complainants at issue in this proceeding, Complainant references three prior UDRP proceedings rendered against Respondent, and where Respondent was found to be offering domain names for sale in excess of out of pocket cost. See Austin Pain Association v. Domain Admin / THIS DOMAIN IS FOR SALE / HugeD, NAF Claim No. 1312001536356; Dell Inc. v. www.HugeD a/k/a/ HugeD c/o This Domain is for Sale, NAF Claim No. 0711001106074; and Chloé S.A.S. v. Domain Admin, HugeD, WIPO Case No. D2014-1467.
Furthermore, the disputed domain names resolve to websites offering the disputed domain names for sale in excess of out of pocket costs and thus the Panel finds that Respondent "registered or acquired the domain name[s] primarily for the purpose of selling for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs," in a showing of bad faith as contemplated by paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy. See Ticketmaster Corp. v. Spider Web Design, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-1551.Due to the extreme renown of Complainants' marks, the Panel finds strong evidence that Respondent was aware of Complainants' rights when it registered the disputed domain names.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names be transferred to Complainants as follows:
, , , , , , , and shall be transferred to Facebook, Inc.;
, , , , , and shall be transferred to Instagram, LLC;
, , and shall be transferred to WhatsApp Inc.; and
, , , , , and shall be transferred to Oculus VR, LLC.
Lorelei Ritchie
Sole Panelist
Date: April 1, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy