Instagram, LLC v Michail Solakis, EasyWebSolutions

WIPO Case No. D2025-1518

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Instagram, LLC v. Michail Solakis, EasyWebSolutions

Case No. D2025-1518

1. The Parties

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

Lovells (Paris) LLP, France.

The Respondent is Michail Solakis, EasyWebSolutions, Greece.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <autolikesig.com> is registered with Domain.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 15, 2025.
On April 15, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On April 15, 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 (Domain Privacy Service FBO Registrant) and contact
information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 16,
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

April 25, 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 April 28, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 18, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 19, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on May 21, 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 United States based company, which provides online photo and video sharing services. Since 2010, these services are provided through its internationally known and popular online platform, which primarily consists of a mobile application and a website.

Besides a large number of INSTAGRAM and other trademarks, the Complainant is also widely known by its IG trademark. Its many trademark registrations include the European Union Trademark Registration No. 017946393, registered on January 31, 2019, for IG, and the International Trademark Registration No.

1129314, registered on March 15, 2012, for INSTAGRAM, both covering protection for various goods and
services primarily related to online social networking services.

Furthermore, the Complainant is the registered owner of many domain names comprising its INSTAGRAM trademarks.

The Respondent is reportedly located in Greece.

The disputed domain name was registered on March 3, 2015.

According to the provided documents by the Complainant, the disputed domain name resolved to a website that purported to offer for sale “likes”, “views”, “followers” etc. for accounts on the Complainant’s social media platform, including a tool that allegedly enables users to download posted videos, photos and stories. On its associated website, the Respondent prominently used the Complainant’s INSTAGRAM and IG trademarks without a visible disclaimer describing the (lack of) relationship between the Parties.

At the date of the decision, the disputed domain name resolves to a website with a farewell notice, indicating that the Respondent “will be shutting down its services due to some issues”.

On March 11, 2025, the Complainant’s lawyers sent a cease-and-desist letter via email and submitted a notice to the Respondent via the Registrar’s registrant contact form, but no response was received.

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.

B. Respondent

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.

page 3

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied:

(i)        the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights;

(ii)       the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii)      the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant bears the burden of proving that all these requirements are fulfilled, even if the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions. Stanworth Development Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2007-1228.

However, concerning the uncontested information provided by the Complainant, the Panel may, where
relevant, accept the provided reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint as true. WIPO Overview of
WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.3.

For the evaluation of this case, the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will decide consistently with the consensus views stated therein.

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 IG trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the IG mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Although the addition of other terms, here “auto” and “likes”, 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 name and the mark 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.

page 4

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.

There is particularly no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor there are circumstances or activities that would establish the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests therein. Rather, the Panel notes the nature of the disputed domain name, which comprises the

Complainant’s IG trademark in its entirety, and also the content and confusingly similar design of the website linked to the disputed domain name. The allegedly offered option to buy “likes” and a tool to download postings and alike from the Complainant’s social media platform is in view of the Panel clear indication that the Respondent is targeting the Complainant’s social media platform.

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.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent must have had the Complainant in mind when registering the disputed domain name. It is obvious to the Panel that the Respondent has deliberately chosen the confusingly similar disputed domain name to target the Complainant and to freeride on the notoriety of its popular social media platform. Consequently, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.

With respect to the use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the Panel finds that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in order to generate traffic to its own website by misleading third parties in a false belief that the website associated to the disputed domain name is operated or at least authorized by the Complainant. The prominent use of the Complainant’s INSTAGRAM and IG trademarks, a confusingly

similar design of the associated website as well as the purportedly offered options to buy likes and/or a tool
to download postings from the Complainant’s social media platform, is in view of the Panel, sufficient
evidence that the Respondent intentionally tries to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a
likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its INSTAGRAM and IG trademarks as to the source,
sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the associated website.

In addition, the Panel accepts the failure of the Respondent to submit a response to the Complainant’s contentions and the current farewell notice on the associated website as an additional indication for bad faith.

Consequently, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.

page 5

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 <autolikesig.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Kaya Köklü/
Kaya Köklü
Sole Panelist
Date: June 4, 2025