Westmore · UDRP DecisionBuylinkedinfollowers.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <buylinkedinfollowers.com> to LinkedIn Corporation. It found the domain confusingly similar to the LINKEDIN trademark, held that selling LinkedIn followers through the associated website was not legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and concluded that the Respondent registered and used the domain in bad faith while aware of LinkedIn and targeting its trademark. Although the self-represented Respondent consented to cancellation, it also disputed all three UDRP elements, so the Panel issued a substantive decision on the merits.
The timeline behind buylinkedinfollowers.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 buylinkedinfollowers.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
This decision illustrates how a domain combining a well-known platform mark with terms describing an unauthorized commercial service can support all three UDRP elements. It also shows that a panel may issue a substantive merits decision where a self-represented respondent simultaneously disputes liability and expresses consent to cancellation.
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 LinkedIn Corporation v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Sathishkumar Varatharajan, Kudo Metrics Case No. D2018-1807 1. The Parties The Complainant is LinkedIn Corporation of Sunnyvale, California, United States of America (“US”), represented by The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M. Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC, US. The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, US / Sathishkumar Varatharajan, Kudo Metrics of Salem, India, self-represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <buylinkedinfollowers.com> 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 August 9, 2018. On August 9, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 10, 2018, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 10, 2018 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 amendment to the Complaint on August 11, 2018. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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, and the proceedings commenced on August 15, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 4, 2018. The Response was filed with the Center on September 4, 2018. In its Response, the Respondent consented to the remedy requested by the Complainant. On September 4, 2018, the Center sent the Parties a communication regarding a possible settlement, but the Complainant did not request a suspension of the proceeding since its attempts to contact the Respondent had been unsuccessful. The Center appointed Andrea Mondini as the sole panelist in this matter on September 14, 2018. 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 major professional network on the Internet. Its website “www.linkedin.com” is one of the most popular websites in the world. The Complainant is the owner of several registrations for the trademark LINKEDIN, including US trademark registration no. 3,074,241, first used in commerce on May 5, 2003 and registered on March 28, 2006, claiming online business networking services. The disputed domain name was registered on October 5, 2015. The disputed domain name resolves to a website offering customers the ability to buy LinkedIn followers. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends in essence: - That the disputed domain name <buylinkedinfollowers.com> is confusingly similar to its trademark LINKEDIN because it incorporates this trademark in its entirety, whereas the addition of the descriptive words “buy” and “followers” does not dispel the confusing similarity; - That the practice of selling LinkedIn followers is in violation of the Complainant’s User Agreement, in which users agree that they will not “[c]reate a false identity on LinkedIn, misrepresent your identity, create a Member profile for anyone other than yourself (a real person), or use or attempt to use another’s account”; “[i]mply or state that you are affiliated with or endorsed by LinkedIn without our express consent ( e.g. , representing yourself as an accredited LinkedIn trainer)”; or “[r]ent, lease, loan, trade, sell/re-sell or otherwise monetize the Services or related data or access to the same, without LinkedIn’s consent”; - That the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, because (i) there is no affiliation or other relationship whatsoever between the Parties, (ii) the Respondent is using the disputed domain name by selling followers in violation of the Complainant’s User Agreement and (iii) because the Respondent’s website has been flagged by McAfee WebAdvisor as “very risky” because “it may try to steal your information”; - That the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in opportunistic bad faith because it must have been aware of the Complainant’s well-known trademark LINKEDIN; - That the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith by selling LinkedIn followers to third parties in violation of the Complainant’s User Agreement on a website flagged as “very risky”. B. Respondent The Respondent contends in essence: - That the prefix “buy” and the suffix “followers” are sufficient to avoid confusing similarity to the trademark LINKEDIN; - That it is making a legitimate fair use of the disputed domain name by providing “LinkedIn followers’ services” without any intent to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the Complainant’s trademark; - That it has not registered nor used the disputed domain name in bad faith because the disputed domain name “was not primarily registered to disrupt the Complainant’s business”. Despite the above contentions, the Response contains the following statement: “We, the Respondent consent to the remedy requested by the Complainant and agree to cancel the disputed domain name.” 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, a complainant must establish each of the following elements: (i) The disputed domain name is 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 name; and (iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In the present case, the Respondent has expressly denied in its Response these three elements, but at the same time the Respondent has nevertheless given his consent to cancel the disputed domain name. Considering that the Respondent is self-represented and might not have fully appreciated that his position is inconsistent, the Panel in its discretion still finds it appropriate to proceed to a substantive decision on the merits ( WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.10 ). A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has shown that it holds several registrations for the trademark LINKEDIN, including US trademark registration no. 3,074,241, first used in commerce on May 5, 2003 and registered on March 28, 2006, claiming online business networking services. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, because it incorporates in its entirety the trademark LINKEDIN. The addition of the descriptive words “buy” and “followers” does not dispel confusing similarity. 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 Complainant contends, credibly, that it has not authorized the Respondent to use the disputed domain name, and that there is no relationship whatsoever between the Parties. The Panel holds that the use of the disputed domain name by selling LinkedIn followers (which could also be considered a violation of the Complainant’s User Agreement) does not qualify as legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 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 Given the global reach and popularity of the Complainant’s services under the LINKEDIN Trademark, the Panel holds that it is inconceivable that the Respondent chose the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant’s activities and the name and trademark under which the Complainant is doing business ( Pancil LLC v. Domain Deluxe , WIPO Case No. D2003-1035 ). The Panel thus concludes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith because he must have been aware of the Complainant’s well-known trademark LINKEDIN and registered it targeting the Complainant. Considering that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a website that has been flagged as “very risky” because it “may try to steal your information”, and the website itself offers customers the ability to buy LinkedIn followers (which could be a violation of the Complainant’s User Agreement), the Panel also finds that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel therefore 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 name <buylinkedinfollowers.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Andrea Mondini Sole Panelist Date: September 26, 2018
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around buylinkedinfollowers.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.