Instagram, LLC v Tran Hung

WIPO Case No. DIO2025-0023

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Instagram, LLC v. Tran Hung

Case No. DIO2025-0023

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Instagram, LLC, United States of America, represented by Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP,

France.

The Respondent is Tran Hung, Viet Nam.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <storiesig4k.io> 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 June 19, 2025. On June 20, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 20, 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 and contact information in the Complaint (Registration Private Domains By Proxy, LLC). The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 23, 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 June 26, 2025.

On June 23, 2025, the Respondent sent an email communication to the Center.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal
requirements of the .IO Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for .IO Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .IO Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

page 2

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the
Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 2, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5,
the due date for Response was July 22, 2025. The Respondent sent email communications on July 2, 2025.
The Respondent did not file a formal response. The Center notified the Parties of the commencement of

Panel appointment process on July 23, 2025.

The Center appointed Nayiri Boghossian as the sole panelist in this matter on August 7, 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 world-renowned social networking platform created in 2010. The Complainant owns many trademark registrations for IG such as:

- Australian Trademark registration No. 1950863 registered on August 24, 2018, and
- European Union Trade Mark registration No. 017946393 registered on January 31, 2019.

The Complainant also owns numerous trademark registrations for INSTA and INSTAGRAM, and operates domain names such as <instagram.com>.

The disputed domain name was registered on October 25, 2022, and resolves to a website titled “Instagram
Story Viewer” which claims to offer a tool for anonymously viewing and downloading content from the

Complainant’s Instagram platform.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark IG
preceded by the term “stories” and followed by “4k”, which do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.

The country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.io” may be disregarded.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain services. The requirements of the Oki Data test (see Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903) are not met in the current case. The Respondent does not provide services for the proper use of the Complainant’s product. Instead, it offers an unauthorized tool to download content from the Complainant’s website. The website features commercial advertising banners and pop ups. The website does not accurately or prominently disclose the lack of relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent used a proxy service. There is no evidence that the Respondent has acquired or applied for any trademark registrations for “ig” or “storiesig4k”. The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s website features commercial advertising banners and pop ups, which indicates that the Respondent may be deriving click through revenue. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to exploit the goodwill and reputation associated with the Complainant’s trademarks by creating a false impression of association with the Complainant. By doing so, the Respondent is misleadingly diverting Internet users to its website.

name. The Complainant did not authorize the Respondent to use its trademark in the disputed domain
name. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant nor is a licensee of the Complainant. The

page 3

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant’s trademark IG is well-known as an abbreviation of the Complainant’s trademark
INSTAGRAM. The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark. The website of the
Respondent makes clear reference to the Complainant’s trademarks INSTAGRAM and INSTA and features
modified versions of the Complainant’s logo and figurative trademark as well as a color scheme very similar
to that used by the Complainant. The Respondent used a proxy service to hide its identity. The Respondent
has been using the disputed domain name to purportedly offer for download a tool for the unauthorized
viewing and downloading of content from Instagram. The Respondent’s website features commercial
advertising banners and pop ups, which indicates that the Respondent may be deriving click through
revenue. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to exploit the goodwill and reputation
associated with the Complainant’s trademarks by creating a false impression of association with the
Complainant. There is no clear disclaimer on the relationship between the Respondent and the

Complainant.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not submit an official reply to the Complainant’s contentions. Instead, in an email dated June 23, 2025, the Respondent stated the following: “Pls delete this domain. We do not need it.” In an email of July 2, 2025, the Respondent stated that they have asked the Registrar to delete the disputed domain

name and forwarded the email sent in this respect. On the same date, the Respondent emailed stating that

they cannot access the domain anymore.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant owns trademark registrations for IG. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established its ownership of the trademark IG.

The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark IG in its entirety. The term “stories” and the letters “4k” do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The ccTLD “.io” can be ignored when assessing confusing similarity as it is viewed as a standard registration requirement.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the

Complainant and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant must make at least a prima facie showing that a respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such showing is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent. In the instant case, the Complainant

asserts, inter alia, that the Respondent is not authorized by the Complainant to use its trademark and the established a prima facie case, and the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests.

The Respondent has not provided any evidence to show that it has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Instead, upon notice of the dispute, the Respondent asked the Registrar to delete the disputed domain name. The Panel infers from this communication that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent does not object to the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant.

page 4

Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has met the requirement under the Policy of showing
that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark as the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to provide a tool that allows access to the stories on Instagram, the Complainant’s website. Furthermore, the Complainant’s trademark was registered several years before the registration of

the disputed domain name.

Furthermore, the Panel considers that the use of the disputed domain name, incorporating the Complainant’s trademarks, to resolve to a website offering services related to the Complainant’s website without authorization and without identifying the lack of relationship with the Complainant is indicative of bad faith for the purposes of the Policy. In this regard, the Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally created a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website in order to unfairly attract Internet users for the Respondent’s own benefit. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 <storiesig4k.io> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Nayiri Boghossian/
Nayiri Boghossian
Sole Panelist
Date: August 18, 2025