Westmore · UDRP DecisionBacebook.net + 6 more domains
The Panel ordered the transfer of seven domain names incorporating misspellings or modified versions of the FACEBOOK mark. It found confusing similarity based on typosquatting and the addition of descriptive wording, no rights or legitimate interests because Respondent lacked authorization and presented no supporting evidence, and bad faith based on sponsored links, presumed commercial gain, a pattern of domain-name registrations, and the extreme renown of the FACEBOOK mark.
The timeline behind bacebook.net
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 bacebook.net — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.
The decision illustrates a straightforward multi-domain typosquatting case in which misspellings of a highly renowned mark, sponsored-link use, lack of authorization, and an unrebutted pattern allegation collectively established all three UDRP elements. It also shows that adding descriptive wording to a misspelled mark does not prevent confusing similarity.
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. Robert Brooks Case No. D2019-2121 1. The Parties Complainant is Facebook Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France. Respondent is Robert Brooks, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain names <bacebook.net>, <connectnfacebook.net>, <facebmok.com>, <graphnfacebook.com>, <nsnfacebook.com>, and <vacebook.net> are registered with eNom, Inc. The disputed domain name <facmbook.com> is registered with NameSilo, LLC. The Registrars will collectively be hereinafter referred to as the “Registrars”. 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 30, 2019. On August 30, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On the same day, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification response confirming that 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 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 3, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 23, 2019. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on September 25, 2019. The Center appointed Lorelei Ritchie as the sole panelist in this matter on October 15, 2019. 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 Complainant is a provider of online social networking services. Launched in 2004, Facebook now has over 2 billion monthly active users. Its main website is “ www.facebook.com ”, currently ranked the seventh most visited website in the world, and the fifth most visited website in the United States, where Respondent lists his address of record. Complainant owns several registrations for the FACEBOOK mark, including in the United States where Respondent lists his address of record. These include United States Registration No. 3041791 (registered on January 10, 2006); United States Registration No. 3122052 (registered on July 25, 2006); European Union Registration No. 004535381 (registered on June 22, 2011), and International Registration No. 772524 (registered on December 3, 2001). The disputed domain names <bacebook.net>, <connectnfacebook.net>, <facebmok.com>, <graphnfacebook.com>, <nsnfacebook.com>, <vacebook.net> and <facmbook.com> were registered between September 24, 2014, and March 21, 2016. Almost all of the disputed domain names either are or have been linked to sponsored web links. Respondent has no affiliation with Complainant, nor any license to use its marks. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that (i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainants’ trademarks, (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. Specifically, Complainant contends that it owns the FACEBOOK mark, which is “highly distinctive and famous throughout the world”. Complainant contends that Respondent has incorporated versions of its well-known FACEBOOK mark or misspellings thereof into the disputed domain names, and otherwise merely added generic or descriptive terms to them. Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names, and rather has registered and is using them in bad faith, having simply acquired the disputed domain names for Respondent’s own commercial gain. Complainant further alleges that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct that establishes bad faith under the UDRP. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel must first determine whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. The Panel finds that they are. All of the disputed domain names contain obvious misspellings of Complainant’s well known FACEBOOK mark. This indicates a practice commonly known as “typosquatting”, where a domain name registrant deliberately registers common misspellings of a well-known mark in order to divert consumer traffic. Previous UDRP panels have routinely found typosquatted domain names like these to be confusingly similar for purposes of a finding under the UDRP. See Edmunds.com, Inc. v. Yingkun Guo , WIPO Case No. D2006-0694 ; Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. John Zuccarini, Cupcake City and Cupcake Patrol , WIPO Case No. D2001-0489 ; seealso Credit Karma, Inc. v. Domain Admin, WhoIs Privacy Corp. , WIPO Case No. D2017-0194 . Several of the disputed domain names also add descriptive wording that may be associated by consumers with Complainant or its social networking services. Numerous UDRP panels have agreed that supplementing or modifying a trademark with generic or descriptive words does not make a domain name any less identical or confusingly similar for purposes of satisfying this first prong of paragraph (4)(a)(i) of the Policy. See, for example , Microsoft Corporation v. StepWeb , WIPO Case No. D2000-1500 ; Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Horoshiy, Inc. , WIPO Case No. D2004-0620 ; General Electric Company v. Recruiters , WIPO Case No. D2007-0584 . The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph (4)(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel next considers whether Complainant has shown that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests as must be proven to succeed in a UDRP dispute. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy gives examples that might show rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. These examples include: (i) use of the domain name “in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services”; (ii) demonstration that respondent has been “commonly known by the domain name”; or (iii) “legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue”. No evidence has been presented to the Panel that might support a claim of Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and Respondent has no license from, or other affiliation with, Complainants. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has provided sufficient evidence of Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy which Respondent has not rebutted. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith There are several ways that a complainant can demonstrate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith. For example, paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy states that bad faith can be shown where “by using the domain name [respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [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 [respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the] website or location”. As noted in Section 4 of this Panel’s decision, almost all of the disputed domain names either are or have been linked to sponsored web links. Hence, Respondent is trading on the goodwill of Complainant’s trademarks to attract Internet users, presumably for Respondent’s own commercial gain. The Panel further notes that Complainant has submitted evidence that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering domain names. This evidences also bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(ii). A number of prior UDRP panels have found Complainant’s marks to be extremely well known. See, for example , Facebook Inc. v. Emma Boiton , WIPO Case No. D2016-0623 (finding FACEBOOK to be “one of the most famous online trademarks in the world”); and Facebook Inc., WhatsApp Inc., Instagram, LLC, Oculus VR, LLC v. Domain Admin / This Domain is For Sale, HugeDomains.com , WIPO Case No. D2019-0150 . Due to the extreme renown of Complainant’s FACEBOOK mark, the Panel finds strong evidence that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s rights when it registered the disputed domain names. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith in accordance with 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 <bacebook.net>, <connectnfacebook.net>, <facebmok.com>, <graphnfacebook.com>, <nsnfacebook.com>, <vacebook.net>, and <facmbook.com> be transferred to Complainant. Lorelei Ritchie Sole Panelist Date: October 21, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around bacebook.net
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.