Meta Platforms, Inc. v Creative minds
WIPO Case No. D2025-1153
•13-06-2025
| ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER |
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Creative minds
Case No. D2025-1153
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Meta Platforms, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Hogan
Lovells (Paris) LLP, France.
The Respondent is Creative minds, Egypt, self-represented.
2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names <metallama.app> and <metallamachat.com> are registered with Dynadot Inc
(the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 20, 2025.
On March 20, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On May 21, 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 (Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot) and contact
information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 24,
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
March 28, 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 2, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 22, 2025. The Respondent sent email communications on March 24, April 3 and 4, 2025, and then the Response was filed with the Center on April 16, 2025. The Respondent sent email communications on May 14 and 15, 2025. The Center further received a Supplemental Filing from the Respondent on May 25, 2025.
page 2
The Center appointed Kateryna Oliinyk as the sole panelist in this matter on May 15, 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 social technology company, which operates, inter alia, Facebook,
Instagram, Meta Quest (formerly Oculus), and WhatsApp.
On October 28, 2021, during the Connect 2021 event, a corporate rebranding of the Complainant was announced. The Complainant changed its name to its current name, adopting a new infinity-shaped logo. This rebranding marked a strategic shift in the company’s focus from traditional social networking services toward developing the metaverse – a digital environment integrating virtual and augmented realities. While the corporate name changed, Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and other applications remained under the new Meta corporate structure. According to the Complainant’s public statements, the rebranding also aimed to reflect its broader mission to build technologies that enable social connection and digital interaction beyond current two-dimensional platforms.
LLaMA (Large Language Model Meta AI) is a series of advanced language models developed by Meta. of LLaMA has received widespread media and industry attention.
LLaMA was announced on February 24, 2023, via a blog post and a paper describing the model’s training,
architecture, and performance. On July 18, 2023, in partnership with Microsoft, Meta announced LLaMA 2,
the next generation of LLaMA. The primary goal of LLaMA is to provide tools for natural language
processing tasks. LLAMA can be applied in a range of contexts, including chatbots and virtual assistants,
content creation, translation services, summarization, and beyond. Information regarding the Complainant’s
The Complainant operates an exclusively online social networking business and relies heavily on its domain names incorporating the META trademark, which are central to its services and global user access. It holds numerous META-formative domain names across various generic and country code Top-Level Domains.
The Complainant has also established a strong digital presence through active engagement on major social media platforms, with millions of followers on its verified pages, including over 8 million on Facebook and over 13 million on X (formerly Twitter).
The Complainant has secured ownership of registrations for the META trademark in various jurisdictions, including but not limited to the following:
| - | United States Trademark Registration No. 5548121 for META, registered on August 28, 2018, |
assigned to the Complainant on 26 October, 2021, for services in International Classes 35 and 42;
- Andorran Trademark Registration No. 43626 for META, registered on 3 January, 2022, for goods and services in International Classes 9, 28, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, 45;
- Monégasque Trademark Registration No. 37277 for META, registered on February 8, 2022, for goods and services in International Classes 9, 28, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, 45; and
- European Union Trademark Registration No. 018686894 for META, registered on July 14, 2023, for goods and services in International Classes 10, 14, 16, 18, 21 and 25.
The disputed domain name <metallama.app> was created on October 8, 2023, and the disputed domain name <metallamachat.com> was created on October 7, 2023.
At the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain names <metallama.app> and <metallamachat.com>
redirected to GoDaddy landing pages displaying them for sale, with a listed “Buy-It-Now” price of USD
24,888 each or an invitation to make an offer.
page 3
At the time of submission of the amended Complaint, the disputed domain name <metallama.app> resolved <metallamachat.com> resolved to a landing page stating: “Our Llama. Metaverse Llama. Adventure is out there, visit ourllama.com for more details”. The web page also featured a button labelled “CONTACT US” and displayed an image of a snowy mountain in the background. When clicking on the “CONTACT US” buttons on the websites of the disputed domain names the Internet user was redirected to the website “
to a landing page that stated: “OUR LLAMA/ WELCOME TO METALLAMA/ OUR LLAMA IN THE
METAVERSE, visit ourllama.com for more details.” The web page featured a button labelled “CONTACT
The domain name <ourllama.com> was created on September 30, 2023. It previously resolved to a website claiming to be an independent project unrelated to the Complainant or its LLaMA AI model. However, historical records from “ show that as of December 22, 2024, the site solicited offers for purchase, and by March 12, 2025, it resolved to a blank page. The domain name is presently offered for sale with a listed “Buy-It-Now” price of USD 65,021.99.
On October 31, 2024, an individual identifying as “Adam Ali” contacted the Complainant to offer for sale the domain names <metallama.app> and <metallama.de>, with follow-up emails sent on the same day and on November 5, 2024.
The Respondent conducts business under the trade name Creative Minds as an independent domain investor and developer based in Mansoura, Egypt. Since 2021, he has built a portfolio of over 600 domain names in the fields of technology, finance, and artificial intelligence. The Respondent has a documented investment history and has previously transferred seven domain names with the “meta” element to the Complainant, following Meta’s unsolicited approach through its counsel.
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.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant asserts rights in the META trademark, supported by registrations in multiple jurisdictions. It alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the META trademark, as each includes the META trademark as the dominant element. The Complainant argues that the additions of “llama” and “llama chat” in the disputed domain names do not eliminate this similarity, and that the META trademark remains
clearly recognizable within the disputed domain names.
The Complainant contends that the generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs”) “.app” and “.com” may be disregarded for purposes of assessing confusing similarity as they are viewed as standard registration requirements.
No Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant. The Respondent is not
affiliated with the Complainant in any way. The Complainant has not granted any authorization for the
Respondent to make use of its META trademark, in a domain name or otherwise.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent offered the disputed domain names for sale via GoDaddy landing pages, each listed at a “Buy-It-Now” price of USD 24,888. While acknowledging that “meta” and “llama” are dictionary terms, the Complainant argues that their combination strongly evokes its META
page 4
trademark and its LLaMA AI model, particularly given the media attention surrounding the launch of LLaMA 2
shortly before the creation of disputed domain names.
The Complainant contends that, due to the disputed domain names’ composition and timing, the
Respondent’s use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the
UDRP.
The Complainant further asserts that there is no evidence of the Respondent having made demonstrable
preparations to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Alteration of their use and linking the disputed domain names with the external website at the domain name
<ourllama.com> together with a disclaimer is a pretextual attempt to evade responsibility under the UDRP.
The Complainant further claims that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Respondent has acquired or applied for any trademarks corresponding to “metallama,” “metallamachat,” or similar variations. The prior listing of the disputed domain names for sale on GoDaddy’s website and their current use do not establish any legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain names.
The Complainant additionally contends that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. The Respondent previously listed the disputed domain names for sale, and any current use was adopted only after becoming aware of the UDRP Complaint. Such conduct does not constitute legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as the timing and nature of the Respondent’s actions indicate an attempt to create the appearance of legitimate use rather than demonstrating bona fide intent.
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant submits that the Respondent’s parking of the disputed domain names and listing them for
sale supports the inference that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names opportunistically,
with knowledge of the Complainant’s META trademark and of the Complainant’s LLaMA service, primarily for
the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain names to the Complainant, who is the
owner of the META trademark, or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of
the Respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain names.
The Complainant further contends that in light of the composition of the disputed domain names, the
Complainant cannot conceive of any good faith use to which the disputed domain names could be put by the
Respondent that would not carry with them an inherent risk of confusion.
B. Respondent
The Respondent contends that the Complainant has not satisfied all three of the elements required under the
Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Respondent argues that the disputed domain names consist of the generic terms “meta” and “llama”, which are not confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LLaMA trademark. The Respondent further contends that the disputed domain names were registered prior to the establishment of any enforceable trademark rights by the Complainant in the LLaMA trademark, and therefore such rights cannot be asserted against the Respondent’s registration and use. Additionally, the Respondent points to widespread third-party use of similar terms as evidence that the Complainant holds, at most, limited rights in the LLaMA trademark.
The Respondent further interprets the terms of the Llama 2 Community License Agreement as confirmation that the LLaMA trademark is in the public domain.
page 5
The Respondent asserts that the term “meta” is a widely used prefix and has been consistently used across its domain portfolio since early 2021, predating Meta’s corporate rebrand. The Respondent claims a long- term registration strategy unrelated to the Complainant, as evidenced by holding or selling “meta”-related domain names without intent to target the Complainant. The Respondent further argues that “llama” is a generic term associated with both an animal and common references in the AI community, and that both “meta” and “llama” are descriptive or widely used terms not exclusive to the Complainant.
No Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondents contends that its established domain business, generic term use, prior dealings with the Complainant, and proactive development demonstrate legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
The Respondent further claims that, since 2021, the Respondent has invested over USD 55,000 in a portfolio been used or prepared for use in independent projects. The Respondent further asserts that the disputed domain names were removed from marketplaces to prevent confusion and preserve fair use during UDRP- related restrictions, and that they were actively developed or intended for development in line with the Respondent’s ongoing investment strategy.
comprising more than 600 domain names acquired through thousands of transactions. This portfolio
includes domain names incorporating the terms “meta” and “llama”, which the Respondent claims were
acquired as part of a broader, long-term strategy focused on technology and artificial intelligence projects.
The Respondent claims that it is known under the disputed domain names. The Respondent maintains a social media presence in the AI and tech community through the X account “@llamaecosystem”, active since March 2022, and linked to a consistent email identity. The Respondent registered the domain name <llamaecosystem.com> in September 2023 as part of this online presence. The Respondent’s Telegram handle, “@ourllama”, linked to a verified mobile number, predates the UDRP proceedings and was used to redirect both <ourllama.com> and <metallama.app> to a “for sale” message in December 2024, consistent with the Respondent’s established business practices. The Respondent contends that this undermines any suggestion of targeting the Complainant. Additionally, the Respondent highlights third-party use of the term “metallama” on various social media platforms since 2011, which is presented as evidence of the term’s broader, independent use in online branding.
The Respondent further contends that the inherently generic and descriptive nature of the elements of the disputed domain names supports its legitimate interests in their registration and use.
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Respondent argues that the disputed domain names were registered prior to any enforceable trademark
rights of the Complainant and are composed of generic or descriptive terms. The Respondent further
asserts that its use of the disputed domain names is consistent with a broader business strategy and online
presence, and that there is no evidence of intent to target the Complainant. Citing public licenses, third-party
use, social media activity, and the Complainant’s delayed and selective enforcement actions, the
Respondent denies any registration or use of the disputed domain names in bad faith.
The Respondent also claims that the Complaint constitutes an improper attempt to seize valuable domain names, warranting a finding of reverse domain name hijacking under paragraph 15(e) of the Rules.
In its supplemental filings, the Respondent reiterates its arguments and provides additional supporting evidence.
page 6
6. Discussion and Findings
6.1 Preliminary Procedural Issue - Admissibility of Supplemental Filings from the Respondent
After the panel appointment, and during drafting of this Decision, the Respondent made unsolicited supplemental filings.
Paragraph 12 of the Rules expressly provides that it is for the panel to request, in its sole discretion, any further statements or documents from the parties it may deem necessary to decide the case. Unsolicited supplemental filings are generally discouraged, unless specifically requested by the panel (see WIPO
Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section
4.6).
Panels have sole discretion, under paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules, whether to accept an unsolicited supplemental filing from either party, bearing in mind the need for procedural efficiency, and the obligation to treat each party with equality and ensure that each party has a fair opportunity to present its case. The party submitting a supplemental filing would normally need to show its relevance to the case and explain why it was unable to provide that information in the complaint or response (for example, owing to some exceptional circumstance).
The Respondent's supplemental filings do not present anything new that could not be gleaned or anticipated from the record available prior to the supplemental filings. The record, as it stands, is sufficient for the Panel to come to a decision, and the supplemental filings do not, in any event, contain any new matter that would
have led the Panel to decide the matter differently. The Panel therefore declines to admit the supplemental
filings.
6.2 Substantive Issues
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: “[a] Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) that the disputed domain names 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. |
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 META trademark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.
The disputed domain name <metallama.app> includes the Complainant’s META trademark as its leading element, followed by the “llama” element, under the gTLD “.app”.
The disputed domain name <metallamachat.com> also includes the Complainant's META trademark as its leading element, followed by the elements “llama” and “chat”, under the gTLD “.com”.
page 7
While the disputed domain names are composed of several elements, each element is readily identifiable and semantically distinct.
The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are 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, “llama” and “chat”, 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 names and the META trademark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.
The Panel disregards the generic gTLDs “.com” and “.app” featured in the disputed domain names under the first element as they are standard registration requirements. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.
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.
The Respondent may establish a right or legitimate interest in a domain name by demonstrating, in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any of the following:
(i) “(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the
domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods
or services; or
(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for
commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.“
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 names.
The Panel established that the Respondent conducts business under the trade name Creative Minds as an independent domain name investor and developer based in Mansoura, Egypt.
The Panel notes that, based on the available record, there is no evidence that the Respondent (as an to have any trademark rights associated with the terms “meta” and/or “llama” on its own.
individual, business, or other organization) is commonly known under the disputed domain names.
page 8
And namely, under the UDRP framework, the Respondent’s reference to various online accounts and domain registrations as part of a multichannel approach to marketing and selling domain names, does not, by itself, establish that the Respondent is generally known by the elements “meta” and “llama” in the disputed domain names.
While the Respondent maintains a presence in the AI and tech community via the X account
“@llamaecosystem”, active since March 2022 and linked to a consistent email identity, and registered
<llamaecosystem.com> in September 2023 as part of its online activities, these facts alone do not
demonstrate general recognition under the disputed domain names.
Similarly, the Respondent’s Telegram handle “@ourllama”, associated with a verified mobile number and used to redirect <ourllama.com> and <metallama.app> to “for sale” pages prior to the UDRP filing, does not preclude targeting of the Complainant or confusing similarity with the disputed marks.
Respectively, the Respondent’s prior listing of the disputed domain names for sale on GoDaddy’s website does not give rise to any legitimate claim of being commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor does it give rise to any reputation in the disputed domain names themselves, independent of the Complainant's trademark rights, nor does the Respondent’s current use of the disputed domain names confer any rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent under this paragraph of the Policy.
Further, the Panel notes that neither license nor authorization appears to have been granted to the disputed domain names.
The Panel does recognize that both the “meta” and “llama” elements inherently are terms taken from the everyday language.
Common words from everyday language can also serve as trademarks and be highly distinctive if they communicate a meaning that is arbitrary in relation to the products on which they are used. The test of whether a trademark is distinctive is bound to depend on the understanding of the consumers, or at least the
persons to whom the sign is addressed. A sign is distinctive for the goods to which it is to be applied when it
is recognized by those to whom it is addressed as identifying goods from a particular trade source or is
capable of being so recognized.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has demonstrated a strong association between the combined terms “meta” and “llama” and its Large Language Model Meta AI (LLaMA) service. Although “meta” and “llama” are common dictionary terms individually, their combination is closely linked to the Complainant due to the prominent rebranding of the Complainant and the launch of its campaign surrounding the LLaMA AI model.
The Panel also notes that the Complainant, in its several versions of Meta Llama 3 Community License Agreement, also provides the clear guidance of the use of the LLAMA name. The Agreement grants users broad rights, including the use, reproduction, distribution, modification, and creation of derivative works from the Llama Materials, but not the name itself. Moreover, under the Agreement, no trademark licenses are granted, but reasonable use of the “Llama” name is permitted solely for compliance purposes associated with the permissive usage of the open source Llama Materials, including distribution or making available the Llama Materials (or any derivative works thereof), or a product or service that uses any of them, including another AI model.
At the time the disputed domain names were registered, a strong association had already been established between the Complainant’s META trademark and the term “LLaMA” due to the Complainant's high-profile corporate rebranding and the subsequent launch and promotion of its LLaMA language models.
This association stems from two major developments; (i) Meta’s corporate rebranding (October 28, 2021); and development and launch of the LLaMA Models in 2023. Building on its new brand identity, Meta publicly introduced its LLaMA (Large Language Model Meta AI) models in February 2023, followed by LLaMA 2 in
page 9
July 2023, in partnership with Microsoft. These models garnered substantial media, industry, and public attention due to their advanced capabilities and open research nature. Thus, the extensive media coverage surrounding the release of LLaMA 2 on July 18, 2023, shortly before the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names, reinforces the likelihood that the public would associate the disputed domain names with the Complainant’s service.
Given the global visibility and branding efforts surrounding both “Meta” and “LLaMA,” these terms had acquired distinctiveness and were readily identifiable with the Complainant at the relevant time of creation of the disputed domain names. Thus, the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names incorporating these terms occurred against a backdrop of widespread recognition and commercial association with the Complainant.
The Panel notes that under the UDRP, the assessment of rights or legitimate interests in a domain name is highly fact specific. While “meta” and “llama” are dictionary terms in isolation, the Complainant has demonstrated that their combination – particularly in the context of the Complainant’s LLaMA AI model and the prominent rebranding and marketing campaign – has acquired distinctiveness associated with the Complainant.
The presence of the term “chat” to “metallama” in the disputed domain name <metallamachat.com>
reinforces this association, as it directly relates to the functionality of large language models such as the
Complainant’s LLaMA (as LLaMa 2 includes foundation models and models fine-tuned for chat).
In this context, the Panel considers third-party uses of “meta” or “llama” to which the Respondent relies on in its submissions to be of limited relevance.
Finally, the Respondent so far obviously has neither used the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair purpose, but, inter alia, and as reaffirmed by the Respondent in its informal email correspondence to the Center and Response, to offer it on
the Internet for online sale.
Panels have recognized that merely registering a domain name comprised of a dictionary word or phrase does not by itself automatically confer rights or legitimate interests on the respondent; panels have held that mere arguments that a domain name corresponds to a dictionary term/phrase will not necessarily suffice. In order to find rights or legitimate interests in a domain name based on its dictionary meaning, the domain name should be genuinely used, or at least demonstrably intended for such use, in connection with the relied-upon dictionary meaning and not to trade off third-party trademark rights. Panels also tend to look at factors such as the status and fame of the relevant mark and whether the respondent has registered and legitimately used other domain names containing dictionary words or phrases in connection with the respective dictionary meaning. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.10.1.
Moreover, given that the disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s undisputedly well-known META trademark in its entirety, combined with the LLAMA name which is associated with the Complainant's open-source large language models (LLMs), the disputed domain names carry, as such, a risk of confusion with the Complainant and its META trademark, which is why subsequently offering the disputed domain names for online sale would not support a claim to fair use and, thus, cannot confer rights or legitimate interests therein. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.
The record does not contain sufficient evidence of the Respondent’s demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Mere assertions or references to the general context of external websites are not enough; more substantive and contemporaneous evidence is required to establish fair use under the Policy.
Under the UDRP, panels assess claims of bona fide use or preparations to use a domain name based on credible, contemporaneous, and verifiable evidence. This may include legal or business planning documents, investments in branding or website development, genuine business plans, related domain
page 10
registrations, and other indicators of legitimate intent. While immediate use is not always required, the
longer the delay, the more scrutiny is applied. Self-serving claims alone are insufficient without objective,
pre-complaint evidence. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.2.
In this regard, the Panel also notes that by its own admission the Respondent was aware of the Complainant support a finding of rights or legitimate interests under the Policy.
and its branding activities since at least 2021 when it sold domain names to the Complainant. Such
knowledge in the context of the composition of the disputed domain names, the registration of the disputed
domain names in 2023 after the Complainant launched the first and second LLaMA Models, the
Respondent’s initial offering of the disputed domain names for sale, change of use after submission of the
Complaint, and the Respondent’s apparently sophisticated domain investing activities, suggests that the
Respondent’s intent was to take advantage of the Complainant’s rights (nascent or otherwise) for the
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.
Furthermore, given that the scenarios described in UDRP paragraph 4(b) are non-exclusive and merely illustrative, even where a complainant may not be able to demonstrate the literal or verbatim application of one of the above scenarios, evidence demonstrating that a respondent seeks to take unfair advantage of, abuse, or otherwise engage in behavior detrimental to the complainant’s trademark would also satisfy the complainant’s burden. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.
In addition or alternatively to the specific circumstances outlined in UDRP paragraph 4(b), particular circumstances panels may take into account in assessing whether the respondent’s registration of a domain name is in bad faith include: (i) the nature of the domain name (e.g., a typo of a widely-known mark, or a domain name incorporating the complainant’s mark plus an additional term such as a descriptive or geographic term, or one that corresponds to the complainant’s area of activity or natural zone of expansion), (ii) the chosen TLD (e.g., particularly where corresponding to the complainant’s area of business activity or natural zone of expansion), (iii) the content of any website to which the domain name directs, including any changes in such content and the timing thereof, (iv) the timing and circumstances of the registration (particularly following a product launch, or the complainant’s failure to renew its domain name registration), (v) any respondent pattern of targeting marks along a range of factors, such as a common area of commerce, intended consumers, or geographic location, (vi) a clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no credible explanation for the respondent’s choice of the domain name, or (viii) other indicia generally suggesting that the respondent had somehow targeted the complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.
Prior UDRP panels have repeatedly recognized the strength and renown of the Complainant’s META trademark and ordered the transfer of disputed domain names containing the META trademark to the Complainant (see e.g., Meta Platforms, Inc. and Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC v. 昭龙 叶, WIPO Case
No. D2022-4696 and Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Nguyen Tien Tung, WIPO Case No. D2024-4438).
Where a respondent registers a domain name before the complainant’s trademark rights accrue, panels will not normally find bad faith on the part of the respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.8.1. However, in certain limited circumstances where the facts of the case establish that the respondent’s intent in registering the domain name was to unfairly capitalize on the complainant’s nascent (typically as yet unregistered) trademark rights, panels have been prepared to find that the respondent has acted in bad faith. Such scenarios include registration of a domain name: (i) shortly before or after announcement of a corporate merger, (ii) further to the respondent’s insider knowledge (e.g., a former employee), (iii) further to significant
page 11
media attention (e.g., in connection with a product launch or prominent event), or (iv) following the
complainant’s filing of a trademark application. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.8.2.
The Panel notes that in 2023 the Complainant developed and launched the LLaMA Models. The evidence on record strongly indicates that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names with knowledge of the Complainant’s activities under LLaMA, as the disputed domain names were created after the release of the LLaMA Models, and specifically after announcement of the LLaMA 2 in July 2023, in partnership with
Microsoft. The composition of the disputed domain names further supports the conclusion that the
Respondent intentionally targeted the Complainant. These factors collectively undermine any claim of good
faith and support the inference that the Respondent deliberately targeted the Complainant’s activity. The
Panel finds, based on all the available evidence, that the Respondent obtained the disputed domain names
with the intention of taking advantage of the reputation of the Complainant’s META trademark and the
LLaMA name.
As prior UDRP panels have noted, what actually matters here is (a) whether at the time of registration of the domain name the relevant term embodied in the domain name was being (or about to be) used in a trademark sense by the complainant and (b) whether the domain name was registered with knowledge of that use and with the intention of taking advantage of the reputation that had or would attach to that term by reason of that use. See, e.g., BML Group Limited v. Rikard Beach, Proxy My Whois AB, WIPO Case No. D2015-1897 (citing St Andrews Links Ltd v. Refresh Design, WIPO Case No. D2009-0601). The evidence in this case suggests that this was precisely the case here: the Respondent learned of Complainant’s nascent rights in LLAMA; the Respondent registered the disputed domain names which fully incorporates the Complainant’s META trademark and LLAMA name with knowledge of that trademark use and with the intention of taking advantage thereof.
The use of the disputed domain name to commercially capitalize on the likelihood of confusion among Internet users constitutes bad faith use of the disputed domain name. These activities by the Respondent fit within the scenarios under UDRP paragraph 4(b)(i) and (iv) and more generally constitute registration and use in bad faith within the meaning of the Policy, taking into consideration the non-exhaustive factors described above as applied to the facts present in this case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has met its burden of establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith.
| redirected to GoDaddy landing pages displaying them for sale, with a listed “Buy-It-Now” price of USD | At the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain names <metallama.app> and <metallamachat.com> and the Respondent. It is also likely that the sender of that communication had the Complainant in mind for purchasing the disputed domain name, given the uniqueness and reputation of the Complainant’s services. |
| The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. | |
| D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking | |
| Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides that, if after considering the submissions, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the Complaint was brought in bad |
page 12
faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding. The mere lack of success of the complaint is not, on its own, sufficient to constitute reverse domain name hijacking. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.16.
The Panel has considered whether it would be appropriate to make a finding of reverse domain name hijacking against the Complainant. The Rules define “reverse domain name hijacking” as “using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.”
UDRP panels have found Reverse Domain Name Hijacking in circumstances including where: the complainant in fact knew or clearly should have known at the time that it filed the complaint that it could not prove one of the essential elements required by the UDRP.
Factoring in that the Complainant succeeded in all three elements of UDRP, the Panel is not persuaded that the Complaint was filed in bad faith.
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 <metallama.app> and <metallamachat.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
/Kateryna Oliinyk/
Kateryna Oliinyk
Sole Panelist
Date: June 13, 2025
0
0
0