ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION WhatsApp, LLC v. Muhammad Fahim Case No. D2025-3683 1. The Parties The Complainant is WhatsApp, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Perkins Coie, LLP, United States. The Respondent is Muhammad Fahim, Pakistan. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name
is registered with Porkbun LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 11, 2025. On September 11, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 11, 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 (Whois Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 12, 2025, 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 September 17, 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 19, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 9, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 10, 2025. The Center appointed Angelica Lodigiani as the sole panelist in this matter on October 17, 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.
page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant operates one of the world’s most popular mobile messaging applications named “WhatsApp”. The Complainant is a global leader in messaging services for mobile devices, with over two billion people in over 180 countries using the WhatsApp application. The Complainant also offers variations of its WhatsApp application, such as the “WhatsApp Business” app, dedicated to small businesses and the “WhatsApp Business Platform” targeting larger businesses. WhatsApp is available in sixty different languages. In recent years WhatsApp consistently ranked among the top apps in the market. It is also the third most downloaded app globally according to “App Figures”. The Complainant has a strong presence on various social networks such as Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly, Twitter), YouTube and LinkedIn. The Complainant is the owner of a large portfolio of WHATSAPP marks registered all over the world, including the following: - WHATSAPP, United States trademark registration No. 3939463, registered on April 5, 2011, and claiming first use in commerce since February 24, 2009, for services in class 42; - WHATSAPP, European Union trademark No. 009986514, registered on October 25, 2011, for goods and services in classes 9, 38, and 42; - WHATSAPP, International trademark registration No. 1085539, registered on May 24, 2011, for goods and services in classes 9 and 38, designating various jurisdictions worldwide. The Complainant is also the owner of International trademark registration No. 1109890 for the telephone logo distinguishing the WhatsApp application, registered on January 10, 2012, covering goods and services in classes 9 and 38, designating various jurisdictions worldwide. The Complainant has registered numerous domain names comprising the trademark WHATSAPP, including , registered on September 4, 2008, resolving to the Complainant’s official website. The Respondent is an individual with an address in Pakistan. The disputed domain name has been registered on February 15, 2024, and resolves to a website featuring prominently the Complainant's WHATSAPP mark and logo and promoting a different version of the Complainant’s WhatsApp application under the name “Pink WhatsApp”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its WHATSAPP trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark along with the nondistinctive term “pink”. Accordingly, the Complainant’s mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. The addition of the nondistinctive term “pink” cannot prevent a finding of confusing similarity of the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s mark. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not a licensee of, nor is it affiliated with the Complainant. The Complainant did not authorize the Respondent to make use of its WHATSAPP mark in any manner, including as part of the disputed domain name. There is no evidence suggesting that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or has any rights in the disputed domain name. To the best of the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent does not own a trademark registration for “PINK WHATSAPP” or any variation thereof as reflected in the disputed domain name.
page 3 The disputed domain name leads to a website offering an unauthorized, modified version of the Complainant’s application named “Pink WhatsApp”, whilst making prominent use of the Complainant’s trademarks. Furthermore, the website content and favicon display a logo confusingly similar to Complainant’s WHATSAPP telephone logo, and the overall presentation replicates the Complainant’s trade dress by incorporating distinctive elements from the original design mark to evoke a similar look and feel. These elements are likely to mislead users into believing that the disputed domain name and the Respondent’s “Pink WhatsApp” are operated, approved or otherwise affiliated with the Complainant. Such use of the disputed domain name cannot constitute legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The registration of the disputed domain name violates the Complainant’s Brand Guidelines, prohibiting the registration of domain names that comprise any WHATSAPP trademark. Accordingly, the Respondent cannot claim to offer bona fide services under the disputed domain name. The use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name to direct users to a website bearing the Complainant’s logo and falsely suggesting an affiliation with the Complainant, while offering a modified unauthorized version of the Complainant’s WhatsApp application, does not confer rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s website contains wording encouraging users to violate the Complainant’s terms of use via the scraping of user content or data from the Complainant’s platform. Such use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy. The Respondent’s website fails to disclose any lack of association with the Complainant. The Respondent does not mention the Complainant at any point, except to promote its own services. Unauthorized third-party websites and services similar to those allegedly offered by the Respondent through its “Pink WhatsApp” application are widely known to be associated with illegal activities, including the distribution of malware and viruses, the scraping of private data and content from the Complainant’s social networks, and phishing schemes aimed at obtaining user login credentials to hack accounts of the Complainant’s customers. Finally, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. First, the Respondent was clearly aware of the Complainant’s mark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has previously been the subject of adverse UDRP decisions finding bad faith registration of domain names incorporating the WHATSAPP mark. Furthermore, the WHATSAPP mark is inherently distinctive and well known throughout the world and has been extensively and continuously used by the Complainant since 2009. In addition, the disputed domain name resolves to a website promoting an unauthorized, derivative, competing service. This website prominently features the Complainant’s well-known WHATSAPP mark and logo and includes multiple references to the Complainant and its business activities. It is therefore inconceivable that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s mark when it registered the disputed domain name. As such, the Respondent is taking advantage of the Complainant’s mark for commercial gain, which supports bad faith. Given the composition of the disputed domain name and noting the nature of the Respondent’s website, it is likely that Internet users will be misled into believing that the Respondent’s website and the alleged “Pink WhatsApp” application are affiliated with or endorsed by the Complainant. The absence of any clear disclaimer indicating that the disputed domain name and relevant website have no connection with the Complainant, combined with the misleading content of the website, further support the conclusion that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such website, or of a product or service on such website or location. Further evidence of bad faith derives from the fact that on February 24, 2025, the Complainant sent to the Respondent notifications demanding the cessation of all unauthorized uses of its WHATSAPP mark and transfer of the disputed domain name. The Respondent never replied to the Complainant. Furthermore, The Respondent registered the disputed domain name using a proxy service provider, which in the Complainant’s view, suggests an attempt to prevent or frustrate a UDRP proceeding.
page 4 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 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 the 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. The 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 the mark is recognizable 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. Although the addition of another term here, “pink”, may bear on 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. In light of the above, 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 name. 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 name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Complainant has no relationship with the Respondent; the Respondent is not one of its licensees, nor is it authorized to use the Complainant’s WHATSAPP mark in any manner, including as part of the disputed domain name. There is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s WHATSAPP mark preceded by the term “pink” and a hyphen. This structure highlights the WHATSAPP mark within the disputed domain name as the hyphen separates the Complainant’s mark from the initial part of the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the nature of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation as Internet users looking for the Complainant and finding the disputed domain name could believe that the associated website contains information about a new or different version of the currently available WhatsApp
page 5 application, which is characteristically green. Such initial confusion of the Internet users deriving from the composition of the disputed domain name is further supported by the contents of the associated website, featuring the WHATSAPP mark and a logo identical to the Complainant’s telephone logo and trademark albeit in a pink variation. Moreover, the Respondent’s website contains information repeatedly referring to the original WhatsApp application, including statements such as “Congratulations! For landing on an authentic platform to add up customized colors to your conversations. By downloading a modified third party application of WhatsApp named as PINK WHATSAPP. Consumers can put up colors to their discussions”. The “Pink WhatsApp” application is described as a “revamped version of ordinary WhatsApp”, which includes “different new and updated attributes to revitalize the use of WhatsApp. Pink WhatsApp is also named as OB2 WhatsApp and has been restyled by (…) a third party user”. The Respondent’s “Pink WhatsApp” application can be downloaded to “expand the users’ experience of using customized attributes of themes, backgrounds and writing styles”. The use of this language is clearly designed to induce users to believe that the “Pink WhatsApp” application is an enhanced version of the Complainant’s WhatsApp application, offering extra features and being endorsed by the Complainant. The use of these third-party applications has frequently been associated with illegal activities, such as disseminating malware and viruses, scraping private data and content from the Complainant’s social networks without authorization, and running phishing schemes to obtain usernames and passwords for fraudulent purposes. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent is taking unfair advantage from the Complainant’s mark by proposing an unauthorized, alternative and competitive version of the WhatsApp application most probably in return for compensation or for some other fraudulent reason. As such, the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for legitimate noncommercial or fair use. For the reasons outlined above, 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 the Respondent was undoubtedly aware of the Complainant and its renown WHATSAPP mark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. Not only is the Complainant’s WHATSAPP mark universally recognized, but the Respondent has previously been involved in two other UDRP proceedings initiated by the same Complainant concerning the same mark, one of which against two domain names almost identical to the disputed domain name (WhatsApp, LLC v. Muhammad Fahim, WIPO Case No. D2024-4513 concerning the domain names and ; WhatsApp, LLC v. Muhammad Fahim, WIPO Case No. D2025-2117, concerning the domain name ). The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name has been registered on the same date as the domain name and that the domain name was registered one month later. The knowledge of the Complainant’s mark is also confirmed by the content of the Respondent’s website, which depicts the Complainant’s well-known telephone figurative mark in pink and offers an unauthorized alternative version of the WhatsApp application, which claims to offer additional and enhanced features. The Respondent’s website does not contain a disclaimer clarifying the lack of affiliation with the Complainant. Instead, it includes misleading language to induce Internet users to believe that the “Pink WhatsApp” application is endorsed or approved by the Complainant. The registration of a domain name incorporating a third party’s well-known mark being aware of such mark and without rights or legitimate interests amounts to registration in bad faith.
page 6 Given the use of the disputed domain name as described above, the Panel finds that the Respondent is unduly exploiting the Complainant’s fame of its WHATSAPP mark for its own undue profit. By adopting the Complainant’s mark to promote an unrelated third-party application, the Respondent is diluting the distinctive character of the Complainant’s mark and damaging the reputation of the Complainant and the goodwill associated with its well-known WHATSAPP mark. The Respondent’s conduct misleads consumers into believing that the “Pink WhatsApp” application offers superior features to the original application and is endorsed by the Complainant. Consequently, the Respondent is unduly exploiting the reputation of the Complainant’s WHATSAPP mark to diminish the perceived value of the Complainant’s application to the advantage of the Respondent’s application. Moreover, there is a serious risk of phishing activities as outlined by the Complainant. Third-party applications that imitate or modify authorized applications are frequently associated with fraudulent practices, including phishing activities and the dissemination of malware and viruses. Furthermore, the Panel notes that the Respondent failed to reply to the Complainant’s demand to cease all unauthorized use of the WHATSAPP mark and transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant. Additionally, the Respondent used a privacy service provider at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name, thus delaying and hindering the enforcement of the Complainant’s rights. Lastly, the fact that the Respondent registered three “pinkwhatsapp” related domain names, including the disputed domain name, during the same period of time is a clear evidence that the Respondent has targeted the Complainant and its trademark to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to its 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 Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location. In light of the foregoing, 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 name be transferred to the Complainant. /Angelica Lodigiani/ Angelica Lodigiani Sole Panelist Date: October 19, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy