Meta Platforms, Inc. v Harmandeep Singh, Namoxy

WIPO Case No. D2023-5053

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Harmandeep Singh, Namoxy

Case No. D2023-5053

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 Harmandeep Singh, Namoxy, India.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <meta-verified.com> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 4, 2023. On December 5, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 6, 2023, 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 (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 8, 2023, 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 December 13, 2023.

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 December 15, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 4, 2024. The Respondent sent an email communication to the Center on December 28, 2023.

page 2

The Center appointed Knud Wallberg as the sole panelist in this matter on January 15, 2024. 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, Meta Platforms, Inc. is a United States social media technology company which operates

Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp, and Meta Quest (formerly known as “Oculus”).

The Complainant holds trademark registrations for META worldwide, such as the following:

− United States Trademark Registration No. 5548121 for META, registered

on August 28, 2018, for services in international classes 35 and 42.

− Andorran Trademark Registration No. 43626, META, registered on January 3, 2022, for goods and

services in international classes 09, 28, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42 and 45, and

− Monaco Trademark Registration No. 2200039, META, registered on February 8, 2022, for goods and

services in international classes 09, 28, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42 and 45.

The Complainant also holds a number of domain names incorporating the META trademark.

The disputed domain name was registered on February 19, 2023, and at the time of filing the Complaint, it was offered for sale on various third-party websites.

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.

Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s META trademark, in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the disputed domain names was registered and is being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name was thus registered on the same day that the Complainant announced its Meta Verified service and it was immediately after its registration offered for sale inter alia on Afternic.com.

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name to it.

B. Respondent

As mentioned above in section 3, the Respondent did not file a formal response, but the Respondent did submit an email to the Complainant and to the Center, in which it stated that it was willing to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant.

6. Discussion and Findings

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP, the Complainant must prove that:

page 3

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the

Complainant has rights; and

(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.

The Respondent has confirmed in an email communication to the Center that he consents to transfer the
disputed domain name to the Complainant and the Panel finds that this forms sufficient basis for an
immediate order to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant. See section 4.10 of the WIPO
Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”); Leica
Microsystems IR GmbH v. Tong Chuang, WIPO Case No. D2016-2316; and Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. v.

Domains By Proxy, LLC / Adam Bruce, Mixspace Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2018-1460.

In addition, the Panel notes that there is no doubt that the Complainant owns valid and existing trademark
rights in the META mark, that this mark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name, that the
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by virtue of the bad faith use
to which it has been put up for sale, and that the disputed domain name, being confusingly similar to the

Complainant’s mark, was registered and used in bad faith.

Accordingly, on the basis of the above, the Panel will order such a transfer to the Complainant.

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 <meta-verified.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Knud Wallberg/
Knud Wallberg
Sole Panelist
Date: February 1, 2024