The Complainant is Instagram, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France.
The Respondent is Terminator Adam, Turkey. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 21, 2020. On October 21, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On October 21, 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 October 22, 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 27, 2020. 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 October 29, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 18, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 19, 2020. The Center appointed Knud Wallberg as the sole panelist in this matter on November 25, 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, Instagram, LLC, is the world’s leading provider of online social networking services. Instagram, LLC, 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, 17th in Colombia and 16th in Turkey, where the Respondent is based. The Complainant is the owner of the trademark INSTAGRAM, which is registered in a large number of jurisdictions including in Turkey under Turkish Trademark Registration No. 2013 74099, registered on May 20, 2015, for various goods and services, in particular International Classes 9, 38, 41 and 42. The Complainant is the owner of numerous domain names consisting of the term INSTAGRAM under generic and country code extensions, such as The disputed domain name The disputed domain Name The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademarks in which it has rights. Both domain names incorporate the INSTAGRAM trademark in its entirety, with the addition of the dictionary terms “copyright center” and “verified badges” under the country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) .co. 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 has it been otherwise allowed by the Complainant to make any use of the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent is unable to invoke any of the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. On the contrary: the disputed domain name 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, just as the fact that the two domain names were subsequently used or likely used in connection with a phishing scheme targeting Instagram users leaves no doubt as to the Respondent’s prior knowledge of the Complainant at the time of registration. The Complainant further submits that the fact that the Respondent provided incomplete and/or false contact details at the time of registration of the disputed domain names also indicates bad faith. As to the bad faith use of the two domain names the Complainant repeats that the disputed domain name The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 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 disputed domain names registered by the respondent are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and (iii) that the disputed domain names have been registered and are 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 The Panel finds that the conditions in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are therefore fulfilled in relation to 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 names 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 respondent has registered or has acquired the domain names primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registrations 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 respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain names; or (ii) the respondent has registered the domain names in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain names, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, 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. 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 way the disputed domain names have been used, it is obvious to the Panel in the current circumstances that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith. It is equally obvious to the Panel that the Respondent has been using the disputed domain name The disputed domain name The Panel therefore finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy are fulfilled for both disputed domain names 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
Sole Panelist
Date: December 9, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy