WhatsApp, LLC, Instagram, LLC v Stewart Aitken, Regency Betting Group

WIPO Case No. D2025-0833

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

WhatsApp, LLC, Instagram, LLC v. Stewart Aitken, Regency Betting Group

Case No. D2025-0833

1. The Parties

The Complainants are WhatsApp, LLC (the “First Complainant”), United States of America (“United States”), and Instagram, LLC (the “Second Complainant”), United States, represented by Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France.

The Respondent is Stewart Aitken, Regency Betting Group, United Kingdom.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <whatsappbetting.com> (the “First disputed domain name”) and
<instagrambetting.com> (the “Second disputed domain name”) are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 27,
2025. On February 28, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar
verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On February 28, 2025, the Registrar transmitted
by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed
domain names 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 the Complainants on
March 7, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the
Complainants to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainants filed an amended Complaint on

March 12, 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”).

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 March 13, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was April 2, 2025. The Respondent did not submit a formal response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 3, 2025.

On April 5, 2025, a third party using the email address found on the website to which the disputed domain names redirect sent an email communication to the Center identifying themselves as the Respondent.

The Center appointed Wilson Pinheiro Jabur as the sole panelist in this matter on April 10, 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 Complainants are leading providers of online social networking and mobile messaging applications and part of the Meta Platforms, Inc. group. The First Complainant’s WhatsApp application counts with over 2.96 billion monthly active users as of June 2024 and the Second Complainant’s Instagram online social network counts with more than 2.4 billion monthly active accounts worldwide.

The First Complainant is the owner, amongst others, of the United States trademark registration no.
3,939,463 for WHATSAPP registered on April 5, 2011, and the International trademark registration No.
1085539 for WHATSAPP registered on May 24, 2011. The Second Complainant is the owner of the
International trademark registration No. 1129314 for INSTAGRAM registered on March 15, 2012; and the
United States trademark registration No. 4,146,057 for INSTAGRAM registered on May 22, 2012.

The First disputed domain name was registered on March 6, 2020. It used to resolve to a gambling website, which appeared to be providing betting via various media, such as telephone and WhatsApp. Presently, it redirects Internet users to the website available at <metabetting.co.uk>, offering “sport betting”.

The Second disputed domain name was registered on January 24, 2023. It used to resolve to a gambling website that promoted similar gambling services to those promoted at the website linked to the First disputed domain name. Presently, it redirects Internet users to the website available at <metabetting.co.uk>, offering “sport betting”.

On November 3, 2022, the Complainant sent a letter to the Respondent regarding its United Kingdom Trade

Mark Application No. 3820012 for “Whatsapp Betting” requesting immediate withdrawal of the

application, cessation of use of the mark on the website available at the First disputed domain name as well

as rebranding. The trademark application’s status is currently “withdrawn”.

On February 6, 2023, the Respondent responded suggesting a financial resolution (Annex 25 to the

Amended Complaint).

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainants

The Complainants contend that they have satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain names.

Notably, the Complainants assert to be the world’s leading providers of online social networking services and mobile messaging applications, actively promoting and using their famous WHATSAPP and INSTAGRAM trademarks throughout the world.

page 3

The Complainants further submit that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, incorporating the WHATSAPP and INSTAGRAM trademarks in their entirety with the addition of the term “betting”, which is not sufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity thereof given that the Complainants’ trademarks are clearly recognizable as the leading elements of the disputed domain names.

Moreover, the Complainants assert that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names given that:

(a) the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainants, nor has it been otherwise allowed by the

Complainants to make any use of the WHATSAPP and INSTAGRAM trademarks;

(b) the use made of the disputed domain names in connection with the offer of gambling services does not constitute a legitimate of fair use;

(c) there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain

names nor has it acquired any rights over the terms “Instagram” and “Whatsapp” which are exclusively
associated with the Complainants, the withdrawal of the Respondent’s United Kingdom Trade Mark
Application being a further evidence in that sense; and

(d) given the overwhelming renown of the Complainants’ INSTAGRAM and WHATSAPP trademarks it is

simply not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain
names by the Respondent (or a third party) other than the Complainants that would not be illegitimate, as it
would inevitably result in misleading diversion.

As to the registration of the disputed domain names in bad faith the Complainants assert that the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainants’ trademark rights at the time of the registration of the disputed domain names considering that they have acquired considerable goodwill and renown worldwide.

The Complainants further submit that the Respondent deliberately engaged in a pattern of bad faith conduct
being linked to other domain names targeting the rights of third parties (<snapchatbetting.co.uk>,
<tiktokbetting.com>, <twitterbetting.co.uk>, <wechatbetting.co.uk>, <youtubebetting.com>).

Thus, according to the Complainants, the Respondent is unfairly seeking to capitalize on the goodwill and fame of the Complainants’ trademarks by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of their websites, making Internet users believe that the websites are associated,

endorsed or recommended by the Complainants, which is not true.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

On April 5, 2025, an individual using the email address found on the website to which the disputed domain names redirect sent an email communication to the Center identifying themselves as the Respondent and explaining that the First disputed domain name includes “WhatsApp” solely to describe a service that allows

users to place bets via the WhatsApp messaging platform and inviting the Complainant to engage in an amicable resolution. The Respondent also provided a Certificate of Filing for the trademark application UK00003741878 for “whats app betting”.

page 4

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1. Procedural Matter – Consolidation of Multiple Complainants

The Complainants request under paragraphs 3(c) and 10(e) of the Rules that this Panel accept multiple complainants in a single proceeding in view of the facts enumerated at section 5.A. above.

Regarding the multiple Complainants in this case, the Panel notes that the Complainants are both wholly- owned subsidiaries of the Meta Platforms, Inc. group. As such, the Complainants have a sufficient common legal interest in the INSTAGRAM and WHATSAPP trademarks included in the disputed domain names to file a joint Complaint. Further, they have been the target of common conduct by the Respondent who has engaged in bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names comprising their trademarks as discussed in detail below. Therefore, it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the consolidation of multiple Complainants.

As regards fairness and equity, the Panel sees no reason why consolidation of the disputes would be unfair or inequitable to any Party.

Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain name Complainants in a single proceeding.

6.2. Substantive Matter

In what it relates to the merits of the case, the Panel will analyze the three requisite elements under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy which have to be met for this Panel to order the transfer of the disputed domain names to the Complainants:

(i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks or service marks in which the Complainants have rights; and

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

(iii)      the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.

The Complainants must prove in this administrative proceeding that each of the aforesaid three elements is
present so as to have the disputed domain names transferred to them, according to paragraph 4(a) of the

Policy.

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 of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Complainants have shown rights in respect of trademarks for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The Panel finds the marks are recognizable within the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

page 5

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 the Complainants have established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainants’ prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence

demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names such as those enumerated in the
Policy or otherwise.

In spite of having the Respondent filed a trademark application in the United Kingdom that incorporated the “whatsapp” element, it expressly withdrew such application, not having shown any circumstances, which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

In that sense, the Complainants indeed state that the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainants, nor
have they been otherwise allowed by the Complainants to make any use of the INSTAGRAM and
WHATSAPP trademarks.

Also, the lack of evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names and the absence of any trademarks registered by the Respondent corresponding to the disputed domain names which incorporate notorious trademarks, corroborates the absence of any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

Furthermore, the redirection of the disputed domain names to a website titled “Meta Betting” underscores the Respondent’s intent to create an undue association with the well-known corporate group to which the Complainants are connected. Moreover, the Respondent’s use of other domain names incorporating well- known third-party trademarks (such as <snapchatbetting.co.uk>, <tiktokbetting.com>, <twitterbetting.co.uk>, <wechatbetting.co.uk> and <youtubebetting.com>) clearly demonstrates a pattern of conduct aimed at exploiting the goodwill of famous trademarks. This pattern significantly undermines the Respondent’s assertion that the First disputed domain name would be a mere description of a service that allows users to place bets via the WhatsApp messaging platform, revealing instead a deliberate attempt to trade on the reputation of widely recognized trademarks so as to offer gambling services, which clearly does not characterize a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the Policy.

Under these circumstances and absent evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain names.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Policy indicates in paragraphs 4(b)(i) and 4(b)(iv) that bad faith registration and use can be found in respect of the disputed domain name, where a respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the

page 6

complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for
valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the
domain name; or where a respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet
users to the website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s
mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or

service on the website or location.

In this case, the Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain,
Internet users to its websites or other online locations, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the
Complainants’ marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the websites or locations.

Other factors that corroborate the Panel’s finding of the Respondent’s bad faith are: (i) the choice to retain privacy services to conceal the true identity of the Respondent; (ii) the fact that the Respondent appears to have engaged in a pattern of bad faith conduct, also registering domain names that refer to famous third-

party trademarks, as seen above (iii) the Respondent's website under the First disputed domain name
featured a green and white colour scheme, that is very similar to Complainants’ WhatsApp's colour scheme,
and displayed a logo containing the Complainants’ WHATSAPP trademark, and (iv) the Respondent’s
communications with the Complainants prior to the filing of the Complaint requesting for an offer he cannot
refuse as the Complainants are billionaires.

For the reasons above, the Respondent’s conduct has to be considered, in this Panel’s view, as bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names.

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 <whatsappbetting.com> be transferred to the First Complainant,

WhatsApp, LLC, and <instagrambetting.com> be transferred to the Second Complainant, Instagram, LLC.

/Wilson Pinheiro Jabur/
Wilson Pinheiro Jabur
Sole Panelist
Date: April 24, 2025