ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION WhatsApp LLC v. BEIBEI PAN and Amanda Li Case No. D2025-1742 1. The Parties The Complainant is WhatsApp LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Greenberg Traurig, LLP, United States. The Respondents are BEIBEI PAN, Singapore (the “First Respondent”), and Amanda Li, Singapore (the “Second Respondent”). 2. The Domain Names and Registrars The disputed domain names and are registered with Spaceship, Inc. (the “First Registrar”), and the disputed domain name is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the “Second Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint regarding disputed domain names and was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 30, 2025. On May 1, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the First Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with these two disputed domain names. On May 2, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the two disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 2, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the First Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. On May 7, 2025, the Complainant requested additional five calendar days to prepare and file an amended Complaint. On the same date, the Center granted the Complainant’s request. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on May 13, 2025, and requested to add the disputed domain name to the proceeding. On May 14, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Second Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the additional disputed domain name. On May 14, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Second Respondent was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name and providing the contact details.
page 2 The Center verified that the amended 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 the Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 16, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 5, 2025. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on June 6, 2025. The Center appointed Assen Alexiev as the sole panelist in this matter on June 16, 2025. 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 a global leader in messaging services for mobile devices. It was founded in 2009 and in 2014, it was acquired by Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly known as Facebook, Inc.). The Complainant provides the WhatsApp messaging and voice-over-Internet Protocol service and mobile application. The Complainant is one of the global leaders in messaging services for mobile devices, with over two billion people in over 180 countries using WhatsApp. The Complainant is the owner of a number of trademark registrations for WHATSAPP (the “WHATSAPP trademark”), including the following representative registrations: − the United States trademark WHATSAPP with registration No. 3939463, registered on April 5, 2011, for services in International Class 42; − the European Union trademark WHATSAPP with registration No. 009986514, registered on October 25, 2011, for goods and services in International Classes 9, 38, and 42; and - the International trademark WHATSAPP with registration No. 1085539, registered on May 24, 2011, for goods and services in International Classes 9 and 38, registered for multiple jurisdictions, including Singapore, where the Respondents are located. The Complainant is also the owner of the European Union trademark WHATS with registration No. 017923676, registered on March 8, 2019, for goods and services in International Classes 9, 35, and 42 (the “WHATS trademark”). The Complainant is also the owner of the following trademark registrations for the logo: − the International trademark with registration No. 1109890, registered on January 10, 2012, for goods and services in International Classes 9 and 38, registered for multiple jurisdictions, including Singapore, where the Respondents are located; − the European Union trademark with registration No. 010496602, registered on May 18, 2012, for goods and services in International Classes 9, 38, and 42; and − the United States trademark with registration No. 4359872, registered on July 2, 2013, for goods and services in International Classes 9 and 38. The Complainant’s official website for its WhatsApp messaging platform is located at the domain name , registered on September 4, 2008.
page 3 The disputed domain names and were both registered by the First Respondent on October 29, 2024. The disputed domain name is currently blocked as unsafe by Internet browsers. At the time of filing of the Complaint, it resolved to a website that included the Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark and logo and offered for download GBWhatsApp, an unofficial modified version of the Complainant’s WhatsApp application, without identifying the provider of the application or containing a disclaimer for the lack of relationship with the Complainant. The website included the statement: “GBWhatsApp APK is a widely-used modified version of the official WhatsApp, offering enhanced customization features and advanced privacy options.” and “GBWhatsApp includes an advanced anti-ban mechanism to minimize the risk of users getting banned by WhatsApp for using a modified version”. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that includes the Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark and logo and offers for download what appears to be the same unofficial modified GB WhatsApp version of the Complainant’s WhatsApp application, also without identifying its provider or containing a disclaimer for the lack of relationship with the Complainant. It includes the statements: “GB WhatsApp APK is one of the popular modified versions of the official WhatsApp. It provides premium features based on the original ones.” The disputed domain name was registered by the Second Respondent on December 18, 2023. It is inactive. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant states that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its WHATS and WHATSAPP trademarks, which are wholly incorporated or clearly recognizable in the disputed domain names, and the additional elements “gb”, “ks” and “mods” do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the same trademarks. According to the Complainant, the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, because they are not licensees or affiliates of the Complainant, are not commonly known by the disputed domain names and have no relevant trademark rights. The Complainant points out that the composition of the disputed domain names, coupled with the content of the associated websites which specifically targets the Complainant, creates a high risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. The Complainant submits that the Respondent’s use two of the disputed domain names to illegitimately offer an unauthorized modified version of the Complainant’s WhatsApp mobile application, which is likely to confuse visitors into believing that the disputed domain names and the Respondent’s applications “GBWhatsApp APK” and “GB WhatsApp APK” have been authorized by Complainant. The Complainant adds that this conduct also creates the risk of similar illegitimate use with respect to the disputed domain name , which is currently inactive. The Complainant submits that the Respondents do not comply with the requirements of the “Oki Data test”, because they are not providing legitimate sales or repairs in relation to a product provided by Complainant, and unauthorized third-party websites and services similar to the services of Respondent are associated with illegal activities, which include malware and viruses, the scraping of private information and content from Complainant’s platforms, abuse of Complainant’s platforms to send bulk unsolicited messages, and phishing for user login credentials to hack accounts of Complainant’s customers. The Complainant adds that the Respondents do not prominently disclose the lack of relationship with Complainant, and encourage third-party users of the Complainant’s services to violate the Complainant’s Terms of Use via the disclosure of sensitive login credentials and delivery of bulk unsolicited messages through the Complainant’s platform.
page 4 The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. It submits that the WHATSAPP trademark is inherently distinctive and well-known throughout the world in connection with its messaging application, having been continuously and extensively used since the respective launching of its services in 2009, and having acquired considerable reputation and goodwill worldwide. In light of this, and in view of the Respondents’ websites content specifically targeting the Complainant, the Respondents must have had prior knowledge of the Complainant’s WHATSAPP and WHATS trademarks at the time when the disputed domain names were registered, and in choosing domain names that closely resemble the Complainant’s WHATSAPP and WHATS trademarks to promote unauthorized derivative competing services, the Respondents are taking advantage of the Complainant’s trademarks for commercial gain. According to the Complainant, by using the disputed domain names in this fashion, the Respondents have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to their websites by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of their websites and the goods and services marketed therein, in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Complainant further submits that the modified WhatsApp applications promoted via the disputed domain names may be used to harvest data or to steal WhatsApp users’ account credentials, for phishing or for other unauthorized or illegal activities, which places the security of WhatsApp users at risk and violates the Complainant’s Terms of Service. The Complainant adds that it sought to contact the Respondents directly and through the Registrars in December 2024, but the Respondents never replied to any correspondence from the Complainant. B. Respondents The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Procedural issue – Consolidation of multiple Respondents The amended Complaint was filed in relation to two nominally different domain name registrants. The Complainant alleges that the domain name registrants are under common control. The Complainant requests the consolidation of the Complaint against the multiple disputed domain name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules, and submits that the common control over the disputed domain names is evident from the fact that the two Respondents have indicated the same contact email address, physical address, and telephone number. The Complainant adds that the filing of separate complaints would lead to additional expenses for the Complainant and inefficiency. The disputed domain name registrants did not comment on the Complainant’s request. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. In addressing the Complainant’s request, the Panel will consider whether (i) the disputed domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.2. As regards common control, the Panel notes that the two Registrars have provided to the Center the same email address, physical address, and telephone number for each of the Respondents. This supports the conclusion that they are under common control. As regards fairness and equity, the Panel sees no reason why consolidation of the disputes would be unfair or inequitable to any Party.
page 5 Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding. 6.2. Substantive issues A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of the WHATSAPP and WHATS trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the WHATSAPP and WHATS trademarks are recognizable within the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the WHATSAPP and WHATS trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms (here, “gb”, “ks” and “mods”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the WHATSAPP and WHATS trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s WHATSAPP and WHATS trademarks, and two of them have redirected to websites that featured the same trademarks and offered for download a modified version of the Complainant’s WhatsApp application that has not been authorized and supported by the latter. As to the “Oki Data test” (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.8), the Panel considers that the Respondent has failed to comply with the first two requirements of this test, because it does not offer for download the official product of the Complainant, but a modified software product of unknown origin and characteristics that has not been authorized by the Complainant. The inclusion of the WHATSAPP trademark in the name of such product is not legitimate or fair.
page 6 The Panel notes that the disputed domain name is inactive. However, it is under common control with the other two disputed domain names, and there is nothing before the Panel to disprove the Complainant’s contention that it is likely to have been intended for the same use as the other two disputed domain names. Considering all the above, the Panel does not regard the Respondent’s conduct as a legitimate activity that may give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under the Policy. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the WHATSAPP and WHATS trademarks, and the Respondent has used two of them for website that offered for download what is being presented as an unofficial and unauthorized version of the Complainant’s WhatsApp application. Taking the above into account, the Panel accepts that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names with knowledge of the Complainant and targeting the WHATSAPP and WHATS trademarks in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the affiliation or endorsement of its website and of the software applications offered for download on it. The disputed domain name is inactive, but in the absence of a Response, this does not lead the Panel to a different conclusion, as it is under common control with the other two disputed domain names, and is likely to have been intended for the same use as the other two disputed domain names. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 , , and be transferred to the Complainant. /Assen Alexiev/ Assen Alexiev Sole Panelist Date: June 20, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy