Instagram, LLC v Dhanvin i

WIPO Case No. D2025-1549

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Instagram, LLC v. Dhanvin i

Case No. D2025-1549

1. The Parties

Complainant is Instagram, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Greenberg

Traurig, LLP, United States.

Respondent is Dhanvin i, India.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <buyinstastoryviews.com> (the “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 April 16, 2025. On April 17, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On April 17, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the 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 April 22, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on April 23, 2025.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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 April 25, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due
date for Response was May 15, 2025. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center
notified Respondent’s default on May 15, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Marina Perraki as the sole panelist in this matter on May 26, 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

Complainant maintains the online photo- and video-sharing social-networking service and mobile application Instagram. Since its launch in 2010, Instagram has rapidly acquired and developed considerable goodwill worldwide. Acquired by Facebook, Inc. (now Meta Platforms, Inc.) in 2012, today Instagram has more than two billion monthly active accounts worldwide. Instagram has consistently ranked among the top “apps” for mobile devices, including for iOS and Android operating systems. It has been the recipient of numerous awards, including “App of the Year” in 2011 from Apple Inc. and is currently the second most downloaded app worldwide, according to Forbes. Instagram's official Facebook page has over 60 million Facebook “likes” and its official X account has over 33 million followers. Complainant’s Instagram app is often referred to as “Insta” for short.

Complainant maintains numerous trademark registrations for INSTAGRAM and INSTA including:

- the United States trademark registration No. 4146057, INSTAGRAM (word), filed on September 19, 2011,
and registered on May 22, 2012, for goods in international class 9; and
- the United States trademark registration No. 5061916, INSTA (word), filed on May 21, 2015, and registered
on October 18, 2016, for goods in international class 9.

The Domain Name was registered on September 29, 2018, and at the time of filing of the Complaint led to a website (the “Website”) prominently displaying Complainant’s trademark, mimicking Complainant’s logo and purportedly selling “Instagram Story views” to users looking to increase their online presence, namely likes

and followers on Complainant’s Instagram platform.

The Domain Name currently redirects to a third party website which also purportedly sells “Instagram reels, views and likes”.

In October 2024, Complainant sent cease-and-desist letters to Respondent to which Respondent did not reply.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the

Domain Name.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements that Complainant must satisfy with respect to the

Domain Name:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant
has rights; and

page 3

(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and

(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

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 Domain Name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP

Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

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 Domain Name fully incorporates Complainant’s INSTA trademark. Accordingly, the
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 other terms, here “buy”, “story” and “views” 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 Domain Name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is also disregarded, as gTLDs typically do not form part of
the comparison on the grounds that they are required for technical reasons (see Rexel Developpements SAS
v. Zhan Yequn, WIPO Case No. D2017-0275; Hay & Robertson International Licensing AG v. C. J. Lovik,

WIPO Case No. D2002-0122).

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 Complainant has established a prima facie case that rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent has not rebutted
Panels have held that offers to sell likes and followers, and in this case views, to users using Complainant’s
Instagram platform, do not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services (Instagram, LLC v. Whois
privacy protection service / Olga Sergeeva / Ivan Ivanov /Privacy Protect, LLC (Privacy Protect.org), WIPO
Case No. D2020-0521, Instagram, LLC v. Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) / Elnur Alizade, WIPO
Case No. D2021-1845).

page 4

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.

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.

The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. Because the the content of the Website, which targets Complainant’s Instagram platform and the nature of the Domain Name which incorporates Complainant’s INSTA trademark in its entirety, along with the words “buy”, “story” and “views”, which also refer to Complainant’s platform.
INSTA mark had been widely used and registered at the time of the Domain Name registration, the Panel
finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering the Domain
Name (Tudor Games, Inc. v. Domain Hostmaster, Customer ID No. 09382953107339 dba Whois Privacy

Services Pty Ltd / Domain Administrator, Vertical Axis Inc., WIPO Case No. D2014-1754; Parfums Christian

As regards bad faith use of the Domain Name, Complainant has demonstrated that the Domain Name has intentionally create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark and business as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Website, for Respondent’s commercial gain. This can be used in support of bad faith registration and use (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4).

been used to resolve to the Website, which prominently displayed Complainant’s registered trademark, and a
logo that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s logo thereby giving the possible false impression that the

Further, the Panel considers the apparent concealment of the Domain Name holder’s identity through use of a privacy shield at the time of registering the Domain Name, to be further indicative of bad faith (BHP Billiton Innovation Pty Ltd v. Domains By Proxy LLC / Douglass Johnson, WIPO Case No. D2016-0364).

Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

The Panel finds that 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 Domain Name <buyinstastoryviews.com> be transferred to Complainant.

/Marina Perraki/
Marina Perraki
Sole Panelist
Date: June 9, 2025