ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION WhatsApp, LLC v. Kai Xiao, Ji Su Ke Ji Case No. D2025-3633 1. The Parties Complainant is WhatsApp, LLC, United States of America (“USA”), represented by Perkins Coie, LLP, USA. Respondent is Kai Xiao, Ji Su Ke Ji, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name
is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 8, 2025. On September 9, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 10, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on September 11, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on September 12, 2025. The Center verified that the Complaint together with 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 17, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 7, 2025. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on October 8, 2025.
page 2 The Center appointed Yijun Tian as the sole panelist in this matter on October 13, 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 A. Complainant Complainant, WhatsApp, LLC, is a company incorporated in the USA. It operates the WhatsApp messaging and voice-over-IP service and mobile application. Complainant is a leading company in mobile communication services, with over two billion users across more than 180 countries using WhatsApp to stay connected with friends, family, and businesses through free, secure messaging and calling. Complainant promotes its business at the website “www.whatsapp.com”. Complainant has rights in the WHATSAPP marks. Complainant is the owner of numerous WHATSAPP trademarks worldwide, including the USA trademark registered on April 5, 2011 (the USA Trademark registration number 3939463), the European Union (“EU”) trademark registered on October 25, 2011 (the EU Trademark registration number 009986514), and the Chinese trademark registered on December 21, 2017 (the Chinese Trademark registration number 21470708A) (Annex 8 to the Complaint). B. Respondent Respondent is Kai Xiao, Ji Su Ke Ji, China. The disputed domain name was registered on March 25, 2025. According to the Complaint and the evidence provided by Complainant, the disputed domain name previously resolved to a website in Chinese purporting to offer an upgraded Chinese version of WhatsApp for downloading. The website copied the overall appearance and style of Complainant’s official website and made unauthorized use of the WHATSAPP name and logo. At the bottom of the website, it claimed to be the “WhatsApp Chinese Official Website” (written in Chinese) and displayed Complainant’s address (Annex 10 to the Complaint). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates the WHATSAPP trademark in its entirety. The mere addition of the descriptive term “pc” does not provide adequate distinction to negate the conclusion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark WHATSAPP. Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to it. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
page 3 6. Discussion and Findings 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 Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. Based on the available record, the Panel finds Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds Complainant’s WHATSAPP mark is recognisable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. While the addition of the term “pc” may bear on the assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. Based on the available record, 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 Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. While 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 often impossible 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. 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 record, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. More specifically: (i) there has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of products or services. Respondent has not provided evidence or reasons to justify the choice of the term “whatsapp”, which is the same as Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark, in the disputed domain name. There has been no evidence to show that Complainant has licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the WHATSAPP trademark or to register or use any domain name incorporating the WHATSAPP mark; (ii) there has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has any registered trademark rights with respect to the disputed domain name. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 25, 2025, after the WHATSAPP mark was registered in the USA (since 2011) and in China
page 4 (since 2017). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s WHATSAPP marks; and (iii) there has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent was making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. By contrast, the disputed domain name previously resolved to a website purporting to offer an upgraded Chinese version of WhatsApp for downloading. Respondent deliberately imitated Complainant’s official website by using similar images and replicating the overall website layout and logo. At the bottom of the website, it claimed to be the “WhatsApp Chinese Official Website” (written in Chinese) and displayed Complainant’s address. Therefore, Respondent has attempted to pass off as Complainant and to make profits through the Internet traffic attracted to the website under the disputed domain name incorporating Complainant’s trademark. Based on the available record, 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. Based on the information provided by Complainant, the Panel finds that Complainant has a reputation in the WHATSAPP marks with regard to its products and services. It is not conceivable that Respondent would not have had Complainant’s trademark in mind at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name (in 2025). This has been reinforced by the fact that the disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark entirely, and that the use of Complainant’s address on the website under the disputed domain name. Respondent has used the website to offer an upgraded Chinese version of WhatsApp for downloading. Additionally, Respondent deliberately imitated Complainant’s official website by using similar images and replicating the overall website layout and logo. The website also it claimed to be the “WhatsApp Chinese Official Website” (written in Chinese). Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Respondent is using a confusingly similar disputed domain name with the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant. Such use constitutes bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established. 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 name be transferred to Complainant. /Yijun Tian/ Yijun Tian Sole Panelist Date: November 9, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy