WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Instagram, LLC v. Nezih Akhun

Case No. D2020-1721

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Nezih Akhun, Turkey.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <instagram.biz> is registered with FBS Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 30, 2020. On July 1, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 2, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Registrar, however, indicated that the language of the Registration Agreement was Turkish. The Center sent an email communication in English and Turkish, to the Complainant on July 2, 2020, inviting the Complainant to provide sufficient evidence of an agreement between the Parties for English to be the language of the proceeding, a Complaint translated into Turkish, or a request for English to be the language of the proceeding. The Complainant filed a request for English to be the language of the proceeding on July 2, 2020. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.

The Center verified that the 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 in both English and Turkish, and the proceedings commenced on July 9, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 29, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 31, 2020.

The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on August 10, 2020. 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 based company, which provides online photo and video sharing services. Since 2010, these services are provided through its internationally known and popular online platform, which primarily consists of a mobile application and a website.

The Complainant is the owner of the trademark INSTAGRAM, which has been launched in 2010 and is registered in a large number of jurisdictions. For instance, the Complainant is the owner of the United States Trademark Registration No. 4146057, registered on May 22, 2012. The Complainant is further the owner of the Turkish Trademark Registration No. 2013 74099, registered on May 20, 2015. The registered trademarks provide protection for various goods and services, in particular International Classes 9, 38, 41, and 42 (See Annex 10 to the Complaint).

The Complainant further holds and operates its website at “www.instagram.com”, which is ranked as one of the most visited websites worldwide. Furthermore, the Complainant is the registered owner of many additional domain names consisting of or including the INSTAGRAM trademark (cf. Annex 8 to the Complaint).

The Respondent is an individual from Turkey.

The disputed domain name was first registered on April 25, 2014, and has recently been updated on July 2, 2020.

Apparently, the disputed domain name has not been actively used since its registration. It particularly does not resolve to an active website (See Annex 11 to the Complaint).

Prior to initiation of the administrative proceedings, the Complainant tried in vain to solve the dispute amicably by sending a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent and asking for the transfer of the disputed domain name (See Annex 12 to the Complaint).

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is identical to its INSTAGRAM trademark.

Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

Finally, it is argued that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1. Language of the Proceeding

The Panel determines in accordance with the Complainant’s request and the Rules, paragraph 11(a), that the language of these administrative proceedings shall be English. Although the language of the registration agreement is Turkish, the Panel finds that it would be inappropriate, given the circumstances of this case, to conduct the proceedings in Turkish and request a Turkish translation of the Complaint while the Respondent has failed to raise any objection or even to respond to the Center’s communication about the language of the proceedings, even though communicated in Turkish and in English. The Panel notes that the Respondent was given the opportunity to respond in Turkish and that this opportunity remained unused by the Respondent.

Consequently, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent will not be prejudiced by a decision being rendered in English.

6.2. Substantive Issues

According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 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.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant bears the burden of proving that all these requirements are fulfilled, even if the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions. Stanworth Development Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2007-1228.

However, concerning the uncontested information provided by the Complainant, the Panel may, where relevant, accept the provided reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint as true. See, section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the consensus views captured therein.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name is, in view of the Panel, identical to the Complainant’s INSTAGRAM trademark as it incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety without any additions or amendments.

In the Panel’s view, the general Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.biz” may, as a general principle, be disregarded when assessing identity or confusing similarity between a domain name and a trademark (in line with prior UDRP decisions concerning the use of a gTLD within a domain name, See. V&S Vin & Sprit AB v. Ooar Supplies, WIPO Case No. D2004-0962; Google Inc. v. Nijat Hassanov, WIPO Case No. D2011-1054).

In view of the finding above, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has met the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel further finds that the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

While the burden of proof on this element remains with the complainant, previous UDRP panels have recognized that this would result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, in particular as the evidence in this regard is often primarily within the knowledge of the respondent. Therefore, the Panel agrees with prior UDRP panels that the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case before the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to meet the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied this requirement, while the Respondent has failed to file any evidence or make any convincing argument to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name according to the Policy, paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and 4(c).

In its Complaint, the Complainant has provided uncontested prima facie evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to use the Complainant’s trademark INSTAGRAM, especially as the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark (see section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).

There is also no indication in the current record that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, not least because the disputed domain name has yet not been actively used. In the absence of a Response, the Respondent has also failed to demonstrate any of the other non-exclusive circumstances evidencing rights or legitimate interests under the Policy, paragraph 4(c) or other evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

As a conclusion, the Panel finds that the Complainant has also satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel is convinced that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when it registered the disputed domain name in 2014. At the date of registration of the disputed domain name, the Complainant’s INSTAGRAM trademark was already registered and in use for various years. The assessment of bad faith registration is further supported by the fact that the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark of the Complainant.

With respect to the use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, as already indicated before, the disputed domain name has apparently yet not been linked to an active website. Nonetheless, and in line with the previous UDRP decisions (Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003) and section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, the Panel believes that the non-use of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith use.

Applying the passive holding doctrine as summarized in section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, the Panel assesses the Complainant’s non-dictionary trademark INSTAGRAM as sufficiently distinctive, so that any descriptive use of the Complainant’s trademark by the Respondent seems unlikely. Furthermore, the Panel accepts the failure of the Respondent to submit a substantive response to the Complainant’s contentions as an additional indication for bad faith use. Finally, the Panel notes that it cannot conceive of any plausible and legitimate use of the disputed domain name that would be in good faith, except with an authorization of the Complainant. Particularly, as the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s non-dictionary trademark, the Panel is of the opinion that any active website linked to the dispute domain name would likely cause the false impression that it is operated or at least endorsed or authorized by the Complainant.

Taking all circumstances of this case into consideration, the Panel concludes that in the present case the passive holding of the disputed domain name sufficiently indicates bad faith use by the Respondent.

Consequently, the Panel is convinced that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith and that the Complainant consequently has satisfied the third element of the Policy, namely, 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 <instagram.biz> be transferred to the Complainant.

Kaya Köklü
Sole Panelist
Date: August 19, 2020