WhatsApp LLC v Sruthan Goud

WIPO Case No. D2022-3834

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

WhatsApp LLC v. Sruthan Goud

Case No. D2022-3834

1. The Parties

The Complainant is WhatsApp LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Tucker Ellis

LLP, United States.

The Respondent is Sruthan Goud, Indonesia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <whatsappgrouplinks.org> 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 October 13, 2022. On October 13, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 17, 2022, 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 (Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 25, 2022, 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 October 31, 2022.

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 November 1, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 21, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 22, 2022.

The Center appointed Tuukka Airaksinen as the sole panelist in this matter on November 29, 2022. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and

page 2

Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the

Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant operates the WhatsApp messaging and voice over IP service and mobile application. The Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark has been registered in various jurisdictions all over the world, such as United States Registration No. 3939463, registered on April 5, 2011.

The disputed domain name was registered on October 2, 2018, and it resolves to a webpage providing commercial links purportedly for joining various groups on the Complainant’s applications.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark as it only adds the descriptive terms “group” and “links” to the same. Adding descriptive terms to a trademark fails to distinguish the domain name from the mark.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and is not commonly known by it. The Respondent is not making any bona fide offering of goods or services at the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a website providing commercial links and displaying

numerous pop-up advertisements, including pop-up that attempt to download software onto users’ devices

and appearing to collect users’ information.

The Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The only reason for the website with the Complainant.

Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name is to create likelihood of confusion with the

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

In order to obtain the transfer of a domain name, a complainant must prove the three elements of which the complainant has rights. The second element a complainant must prove is that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. The third element a complainant must establish is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, regardless of whether the respondent files a response to the complaint or not.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. Consequently, the Complainant must prove that it has rights to a trademark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to this trademark.

page 3

According to section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third
Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), “[t]he applicable Top Level Domain (‘TLD’) in a domain name (e.g., ‘.com’,
‘.club’, ‘.nyc’) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first
element confusing similarity test”.

Furthermore, “where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. The nature of such additional term(s) may however bear on assessment of the second and third elements”. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark as it includes the confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name.

This means that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark and hence the first element of the Policy has been fulfilled.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name.

It is widely accepted among UDRP panels that once a complainant has made a prima facie showing indicating the absence of the respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element of the Policy. See, e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0270, and section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

The Complainant has credibly submitted that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant in any way nor has it been authorized by the Complainant to use and register the disputed domain name, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has not made and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.

The disputed domain name is used to provide commercial links that purportedly are for joining different that the disputed domain name could be put to.
WhatsApp groups but feature pornographic content and pop-ups that attempt to download software onto

Moreover, the Panel finds that the nature of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant’s trademark. See section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. Moreover, “[a]pplying UDRP paragraph 4(c), panels have found that the use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s mark or otherwise mislead Internet users”. See section 2.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that has not been rebutted by the Respondent. Considering the Panel’s findings below, the Panel finds that there are no other circumstances that provide the Respondent with any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the second element of the Policy is fulfilled.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain name has

page 4

been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following
circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of
the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

“(i) circumstances indicating that [the respondent has] registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the 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

(ii) [the respondent has] registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) [the respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the

business or competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial
gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] 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
respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location.”

Considering that the Complainant has been using and registering its trademark years before the disputed domain name was registered, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its trademark when registering the disputed domain name. See section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

The disputed domain name has been found to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark, and the disputed domain name resolves to a website offering various dubious links. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith by promoting the use of the Complainant’s messaging service with the sharing of pornographic materials.

It is therefore evident that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name to intentionally attract,
for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the

Complainant’s mark as to the source, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the third element of the Policy is fulfilled.

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 <whatsappgrouplinks.org> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Tuukka Airaksinen/
Tuukka Airaksinen
Sole Panelist
Date: December 13, 2022