Westmore · UDRP DecisionInstagramcopyrightviolationsecurity.com
The Panel ordered transfer of the disputed domain name after finding all three UDRP elements satisfied. The domain incorporated the INSTAGRAM mark in its entirety, adding the terms “copyright violation” and “security.” The Panel found no rights or legitimate interests and concluded that the domain was registered and used in bad faith, relying on the reputation of the INSTAGRAM mark, the terms’ connection to the Complainant’s services, a Google Safe Browsing phishing warning, and a webpage inviting contact with a domain broker about purchasing the domain.
The timeline behind instagramcopyrightviolationsecurity.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 instagramcopyrightviolationsecurity.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates how a domain combining a well-known mark with security and copyright-enforcement terminology can strengthen, rather than dispel, the inference of targeting. The case also combines several recurring bad-faith indicators: knowledge of a famous mark, service-related additional terms, a phishing warning, a broker purchase page, and an unrebutted complaint.
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 Instagram, LLC v. Bozulma Artik, hayat Case No. D2021-4121 1. The Parties The Complainant is Instagram, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Tucker Ellis, LLP, United States. The Respondent is Bozulma Artik, hayat, Turkey. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <instagramcopyrightviolationsecurity.com> is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 9, 2021. On December 9, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 10, 2021, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 14, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 3, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 6, 2022. The Center appointed James Wang as the sole panelist in this matter on January 14, 2022. 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 operates the Instagram social networking service and mobile application. Instagram enables its users to create their own personal profiles, post photos and videos, and connect with each other on their mobile devices. Instagram has more than 500 million daily active accounts and more than one billion monthly active users from all over the world. Instagram provides translation support for over 35 languages as part of its social networking services and mobile application. The Complainant offers several security features as part of its products. The Complainant also provides information to its users about copyrights, including how to report potential copyright violations on Instagram. The Complainant has obtained, by itself or by its predecessor-in-interest, numerous INSTAGRAM trademark registrations in different jurisdictions, including but not limited to the following: - International trademark registration No. 1129314, registered on March 15, 2012, designating several countries including Turkey, where the Respondent appears to be located; - United States trademark registration No. 4,146,057, registered on May 22, 2012; - United States trademark registration No. 4,170,675, registered on July 10, 2012; and - European Union trademark registration No. 014493886, registered on December 24, 2015. The Instagram brand ranked 19th in Interbrand’s current Best Global Brands report. The disputed domain name was registered on August 16, 2020. The disputed domain name resolves to a webpage offering a link to contact a domain broker service about purchasing the disputed domain name. Accessing the disputed domain name using the Google Chrome web browser would generate a warning that Google Safe Browsing has recently detected phishing on the disputed domain name. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends as follows: The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the INSTAGRAM trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Respondent, who is not affiliated with or authorized by the Complainant, has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services, not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and not making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant requested that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark 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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has provided evidence that it has obtained, by itself or by its predecessor-in-interest, numerous INSTAGRAM trademark registrations in different jurisdictions. The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the INSTAGRAM trademark. As the INSTAGRAM trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s INSTAGRAM trademark. The terms “copyright violation” and “security” added into the disputed domain name do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“ WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), sections 1.7 and 1.8. The Panel therefore finds that the Complaint has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. See WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.1. According to the Complaint, the Complainant has not licensed or authorized the Respondent to use the Complainant’s INSTAGRAM trademark, nor does the Respondent has any legal relationship with the Complainant that would entitle the Respondent to use the INSTAGRAM trademark. The Respondent submitted no response to these allegations of the Complainant. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, and the Respondent failed to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that the Complaint has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant has provided evidence that the INSTAGRAM trademark has been well known worldwide and is inextricably linked with the products and services offered by the Complainant. According to the Complaint, Instagram has more than 500 million daily active accounts and more than one billion monthly active users from all over the world. The “www.instagram.com” website was ranked as the 23rd most visited website in the world (according to information company Alexa). Approximately 89 percent of Instagram users are outside of the United States. Instagram provides translation support for over 35 languages as part of its social networking services and mobile application. In recent years, the Instagram mobile application has consistently ranked among the top “apps” in the market. Given the popularity of the products and services offered by the Complainant and the reputation of the Complainant’s INSTAGRAM trademark, it would be inconceivable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the INSTAGRAM trademark at the time of the registration. This is reinforced by the fact that the additional terms to the INSTAGRAM trademark in the disputed domain name appear to refer to the Complainant’s business considering the Complainant offers several security features as part of its products and also provides to its users information on how to report potential copyright violations on Instagram. The Panel therefore agrees with the Complainant’s contention that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant has also provided evidence that accessing the disputed domain name using the Google Chrome web browser would generate a warning that Google Safe Browsing has recently detected phishing on the disputed domain name. Use of the disputed domain name for phishing activity is manifest evidence of bad faith. Also, if choosing to proceed with the website, according to a screen capture of the website at the disputed domain name taken by the Complainant, the disputed domain name resolves to a webpage offering a link to contact a domain broker service about purchasing the disputed domain name, which indicates that the Respondent has an intent to profit in some fashion from or otherwise exploit the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel agrees with the Complainant’s contention that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0 , sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.4. The Panel therefore finds that the Complaint has satisfied 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 <instagramcopyrightviolationsecurity.com> be transferred to the Complainant. James Wang Sole Panelist Date: January 27, 2022
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around instagramcopyrightviolationsecurity.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.