Westmore · UDRP DecisionBestfacebookstatus.com + 9 more domains
The Panel ordered the transfer of all ten disputed domain names to Facebook Inc. It found that each domain was confusingly similar to the registered and famous FACEBOOK trademark, that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that the domains had been registered and used in bad faith. The Panel relied particularly on the incorporation of FACEBOOK as the first or dominant element, the Respondent's lack of authorization, the offering of many domains for sale, passive holding of others, the trademark's worldwide reputation, and the absence of any Response.
The timeline behind bestfacebookstatus.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind bestfacebookstatus.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.
This decision illustrates how a single UDRP proceeding may address multiple domains using the same famous mark across different use patterns. Express sale offers, commercial content, blank pages, index pages, and inactivity all led to the same result because the Panel considered the mark's worldwide reputation, the domains' composition, the absence of authorization, and the unrebutted evidence as a whole. The case also demonstrates that passive holding does not necessarily prevent a finding of bad-faith use.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Facebook Inc. v. Sleek Names, SL Names, VSAUDHA Case No. D2015-0547 1. The Parties The Complainant is Facebook Inc. of Menlo Park, California, United States of America (“U.S.”), represented by Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France. The Respondent is Sleek Names, SL Names, VSAUDHA of Bangalore, Karnataka, India. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <bestfacebookstatus.com>, <facebookanalytics.com>, <facebookchatsmileys.com>, <facebookhacker.net>, <facebooksurvey.com>, <facebookunblocker.com>, <hackerfacebook.com>, <hackfacebookaccount.net>, <hackfacebookpassword.org>, and <howtousefacebook.com> 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 March 30, 2015. On March 30, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On the same day, 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 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 14, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 4, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 5, 2015. The Center appointed Christopher J. Pibus as the sole panelist in this matter on May 12, 2015. 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 leading provider of online social networking services. The Complainant was founded in 2004, and has since then provided its services to individuals via its website at “www.facebook.com”. Access to the website was originally restricted to students at Harvard University in Boston, Massachusetts, but was quickly expanded to other universities, and in 2006 the website was made available internationally to any individual with an email address. The Complainant has increased its active users from 1 million in 2004 to 1 billion users by September, 2012. At the time the Complaint was filed, the Facebook website had more than 1.39 billion active users and 890 million daily active users worldwide, including more than 110 million active users in India (the location of the Respondent). According to Alexa reports, the Facebook website is the third most visited website in India. In 2014, the FACEBOOK trademark ranked twenty ninth of Interbrand’s Best Global Brands and was selected “top riser” for the second year in a row. The Complainant’s revenues now reach 12.5 billion (USD) annually. The Complainant owns many domain names consisting of the FACEBOOK trademark, including: <facebook.com> <facebook.org> <facebook.net> <facebook.biz> <facebook.com.ar> <facebook.be> <facebook.br> <facebook.cn> <facebook.eu> <facebook.fr> <facebook.de> <facebook.it> <facebook.us> <facebook.es> <facebook.com.tr> <facebook.com.gr> <facebook.hu> <facebook.in> The Complainant also owns numerous trademark registrations around the world for its FACEBOOK trademark, including: U.S. Trademark No. 3041791, registered on January 10, 2006 U.S. Trademark No. 3122052, registered on July 25, 2006 Indian Trademark No. 1622925, registered on November 9, 2011 Indian Trademark No. 1871560, registered on February 9, 2012 Community Trademark No. 004535381, registered on June 22, 2011 International Trademark No. 1075094, registered on July 16, 2010. The disputed domain names were registered on the following dates: <bestfacebookstatus.com> on November 2, 2012 <facebookanalytics.com> on December 15, 2013 <facebookchatsmileys.com> on December 9, 2013 <facebookhacker.net> on October 19, 2013 <facebooksurvey.com> on January 13, 2013 <facebookunblocker.com> on January 25, 2012 <hackerfacebook.com> on April 7, 2012 <hackfacebookaccount.net> on July 5, 2012 <hackfacebookpassword.org> on April 28, 2010 <howtousefacebook.com> on December 23, 2008 At the time the Complaint was filed, the disputed domain names reverted to the following: (1) <bestfacebookstatus.com>; <facebookanalytics.com>; and <facebooksurvey.com> directed to websites that displayed the following message: “This would make a great site! But I don’t have the time: (Kindly contact if you are interested to purchase.”Each of these disputed domains also posted a link to “www.domainsbest.blosgspot.fr/” which offered a list of domain names for sale; (2) <facebookchatsmileys.com> pointed to a website containing emotion icons, and displayed commercial banners which indicated the disputed domain name was for sale; (3) <facebookhacker.net> and <hackerfacebook.com> reverted to a blank page, and were both being offered for sale; (4) <facebookunblocker.com> featured a page which stated that the domain name is for sale and provided a form where Internet users can submit their “best offer”; (5) <hackfacebookaccount.net> and <hackfacebookpassword.org> reverted to an index page and the domain name <hackfacebookaccount.net> was being offered for sale on the Respondent’s blog site; and (6) <howtousefacebook.com> was not pointing to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant submits that it owns many trademark registrations for the trademark FACEBOOK around the world, including the following Registrations: U.S. Trademark No. 3041791, registered on January 10, 2006 U.S. Trademark No. 3122052, registered on July 25, 2006 Indian Trademark No. 1622925, registered on November 9, 2011 Indian Trademark No. 1871560, registered on February 9, 2012 Community Trademark No. 004535381, registered on June 22, 2011 International Trademark No. 1075094, registered on July 16, 2010. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark FACEBOOK. The addition of the various terms, namely “hack”, “password”, “hacker”, “account”, status”, “survey”, “chat”, “smileys”, and “analytics” do not distinguish the disputed domain names from the Complainant’s famous FACEBOOK trademark. Rights and Legitimate interests The Complainant contends that the Respondent was never authorized or licensed to use the Complainant’s FACEBOOK trademarks. The Respondent is not commonly known by the “Facebook” name. The Complainant submits that the use of a famous trademark (or marks confusing therewith) for the purposes of re-sale does not demonstrate a bona fide offering of goods and services. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith because the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s famous FACEBOOK trademark. The Respondent deliberately registered confusingly similar domain names in order to trade on the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant for the purposes of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the disputed domain names for monetary gain. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, the Complainant must establish each of the following elements: (i) The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant owns registered trademark rights in the FACEBOOK trademarks by virtue of the trademark registrations listed in paragraph 4 above. The Panel further finds that all of the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered FACEBOOK trademark. The disputed domain names contain as a first and/or dominant element the Complainant’s famous trademark FACEBOOK, combined with a variety of descriptive terms, for example, “account”, “password”, “hacker”, “analytics”, “survey” et cetera. The addition of these terms do not serve to distinguish the disputed domain names in any material way. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel finds, on the evidence filed, that the Complainant’s trademark has a very substantial reputation worldwide, and as such the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark rights in the FACEBOOK trademark. The Respondent was never authorized or licensed to use the Complainant’s trademark. Many of disputed domain names revert to websites offering for sale, rent or otherwise transfer of the disputed domain names for purposes of monetary gain, and in the absence of any response, the Panel concludes that the Respondent does not hold any rights or legitimate interests in these disputed domain names. As to all the disputed domain names, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, which has not been rebutted by the Respondent. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel concludes that due to the worldwide reputation of the FACEBOOK trademark and its associated services, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark when it registered and used the disputed domain names. The Respondent clearly intended to attract users to its websites through the unauthorized use of the famous FACEBOOK trademarks as the primary and/or dominant element of the disputed domain names. The Respondent is using many of the disputed domain names in association with websites which offer the disputed domain names for sale, or transfer, for purposes of monetary gain. Others of the disputed domain names are essentially passively held, which, as has been well established, does not prevent a finding of bad faith use. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith. The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under 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 names, <bestfacebookstatus.com>, <facebookanalytics.com>, <facebookchatsmileys.com>, <facebookhacker.net>, <facebooksurvey.com>, <facebookunblocker.com>, <hackerfacebook.com>, <hackfacebookaccount.net>, <hackfacebookpassword.org>, and <howtousefacebook.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Christopher J. Pibus Sole Panelist Date: May 29, 2015
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around bestfacebookstatus.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.