The Complainant is Instagram, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France.
The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States / Ahmet Yalman / Xjkdjd nxksjz / rewgferwg ewgerg / Xjjzjz Bzhzhhz / efdwedf wedfwef / erdem altan / Hasan Yavuz, Jjjj / Nsnsnsn Snnndndn / Nxnxnx Nxnxnxjsjskks / dfd dfdf, dfdf / ndsmnxsj bzjsjxjs / Jxksks Ksmssks / Mirac Ertekin / Hhh Hhhh. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 17, 2020. On September 18, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On September 18, and 23, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 25, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on October 6, 2020, and a second amended Complaint on October 8, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaints 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 16, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 5, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 8, 2020. The Center appointed Knud Wallberg as the sole panelist in this matter on December 2, 2020. 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 The Complainant is an online social networking platform. Complainant currently has over 1 billion monthly active users and 500 million daily active users, with more than 95 million photos and videos shared per day. According to the web information company Alexa the Complainant’s website available at “www.instagram.com” is ranked as the 25th most visited website in the world. The Complainant is the owner of the trademark INSTAGRAM, which is registered in a large number of jurisdictions and includes United States Trade mark No. 4146057, INSTAGRAM, registered on May 22, 2012, and Turkish Trademark Registration No. 2013 74099, registered on May 20, 2015, for various goods and services, in particular International Classes 9, 38, 41, 42 and 45. The Complainant is also the owner of numerous domain names consisting of the term INSTAGRAM under generic and country code Top-Level Domain (“gTLD” and “ccTLD”, respectively) extensions. The disputed domain names were registered between June 11 and July 18, 2020. At the time of filing of the complaint, all disputed domain names, apart from The Complainant submits that a consolidation of the Complaint, which is filed against multiple Respondents, is appropriate in this case inter alia since: - there is reason to believe that all disputed domain names were used for phishing; As far as the substantive matters are concerned the Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademarks in which it has rights. The disputed domain names comprise the Complainant’s INSTAGRAM trademark or its approximation “lnstagram”, which differs only in its replacement of the first letter “I” with the letter “L”, followed by the terms such as “help”, “service”, “verify”, “copyright”, “team”, “center”, “portal”, “business”, “managers”, “centers”, “media”, “portal”, “special”, “forms”, “supports”, “community” as well as the letters “s” and “ing” and/or a hyphen under the gTLD “.com”. The Complainant further submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, nor is the Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain names within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, nor has or is the Respondent currently making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy. Finally, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Given the Complainant’s renown and goodwill worldwide, it would thus be inconceivable for the Respondent to argue that it did not have knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark when it registered the disputed domain names in 2020. This is supported by the fact that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy by registering 16 domain names infringing upon the Complainant’s trademark rights. Concerning the bad faith use the Complainant submits the following: The Respondent has been using the disputed domain names The disputed domain names The disputed domain names The disputed domain name The Complainant finally submits that the fact that the disputed domain names no longer resolve to active websites does not prevent a finding of bad faith, given the strength and renown of the Complainant’s INSTAGRAM trademark. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Preliminary Matter: Consolidation Before addressing the three elements of the Policy, the Panel must first address a procedural issue, namely whether to accept in the present procedure that the Complaint against multiple Respondents, may be consolidated. As it is stated in the first paragraph of section 4.11.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) that “Where a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency would also underpin panel consideration of such a consolidation scenario”. Paragraph two of the section then lists several factors that UDRP panels have considered in determining whether a consolidation is appropriate. In this case, the disputed domain names are all “constructed” the same way, they are all registered with the same Registrar within a few weeks, and it is obvious to the Panel, that the names and other contact details of all the 16 named Respondents are all false. Applying the abovementioned principles to these facts, and in the absence of any response from the Respondents, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established more likely than not that the Respondents are either one and the same person, entity, or network, or are somehow connected to each other, and that the disputed domain names are therefore subject to common ownership or control. The Panel further finds that consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties and procedurally efficient. The Panel therefore allows the consolidation as requested by the Complainant pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules. 6.2. Substantive Matters of the Complaint According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the burden of proving that all these elements are present lies with the Complainant. At the same time, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, the Rules, or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are all confusingly similar (in the sense of the Policy) to the Complainant’s registered trademark INSTAGRAM. The disputed domain names The disputed domain names The gTLDs “.com” is a standard registration requirement and as such generally disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. See section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. The Panel finds that the conditions in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are therefore fulfilled in relation to all the disputed domain names. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests It is clear from the facts of the case that the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademark and given the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has not produced, and there is no evidence of the types of circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy that might give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names on the part of the Respondent in these proceedings. Consequently, the Panel finds that the condition in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is also fulfilled. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove both registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides examples of circumstances which shall be evidence of registration and use in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that the holder has registered or has acquired the domain name 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 the holder’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the holder has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the holder has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the holder has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the holder has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the holder’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the holder’s website or location or of a product or service on the holder’s website or location. Accordingly, for the Complainant to succeed, the Panel must be satisfied that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. Given the circumstances of the case, in particular the extent of use and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark INSTAGRAM, and the fact that the Respondent has registered 16 domain names that are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names with prior knowledge of the Complainant and the Complainant’s marks. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith. The Panel further finds that the Complainant has submitted sufficient evidence to support the Complainant’s claim that all the disputed domain names have been used in bad faith, see section 3.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. The fact that the disputed domain names are presently not used for any active websites does not prevent a finding of bad faith use, in a case like this where the disputed domain names all incorporate a well-known trademark, that no response has been filed, that there appears to be no conceivable good faith use that could be made by the Respondent of the disputed domain names and that the Respondent is clearly attempting to hide its true identity. See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. Based on the above findings and and considering all the facts and evidence, the Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy are also fulfilled in this case. 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, Knud Wallberg
- all disputed domain names were registered with the same registrar and reseller;
- all of the disputed domain names are on the same three nameservers;
- all disputed domain names were registered between June 11, 2020, and July 18, 2020;
- all disputed domain names target the Complainant’s INSTAGRAM trade mark;
- all disputed domain names were registered under the “.com” gTLD; and
- a consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties since the registrants of the disputed domain names appear to be connected in such a manner that to require the Complainant to file separate complaints would cause the Complainant to incur considerable additional time and expenses, running contrary to the aim of the Policy to provide a time-and-cost effective means for resolving domain name disputes, and since the Complainant’s arguments concerning the disputed domain names are the same.
Sole Panelist
Date: January 4, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy