Westmore · UDRP DecisionIinstapro.net + 5 more domains
The Panel consolidated the proceeding against the nominally different registrants after finding common control and no unfairness or inequity. It held that all six domain names were confusingly similar to the Complainant’s INSTAGRAM or INSTA marks, that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that the domain names were registered and used in bad faith. The domains redirected to a site offering an unauthorized modified Instagram APK while prominently using the Complainant’s marks, similar logos, and a similar color scheme. The Panel ordered all six domain names transferred to Instagram, LLC.
The timeline behind iinstapro.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 iinstapro.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 how multiple domains held by nominally different registrants may be consolidated where website redirection and naming patterns demonstrate common control. It also shows that a modified-app download site does not gain legitimacy merely by including a disclaimer when the domains and site presentation prominently invoke the trademark owner and create an initial impression of affiliation.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Instagram, LLC v. Muhammad Tahir, Muhammad ASIF, pinoy tvshows Case No. D2024-4981 1. The Parties The Complainant is Instagram, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France. The Respondents are Muhammad Tahir, Pakistan, Muhammad ASIF, Pakistan, pinoy tvshows, Pakistan. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars The disputed domain names <iinstapro.net>, <instapro.com.co>, <myinstapro.org> and <instapro.live> are registered with Name.com, Inc. The disputed domain names <instagrampro.cam> and <instaproapkdownloads.net> are registered with NETIM SARL (Name.com, Inc. and NETIM SARL, collectively referred to as the “Registrars”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 2, 2024. On December 3 and December 9, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar Name.com, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names <myinstapro.org>, <instapro.com.co> and <iinstapro.net>. On December 3 and 9, 2024, the Registrar Name.com transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names <myinstapro.org>, <instapro.com.co> and <iinstapro.net> which differed from the named Respondents (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY, Domain Protection Services, Inc.) and contact information in the Complaint. On December 3, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar NETIM SARL, a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name <instagrampro.cam>. On December 4, 2024, the Registrar NETIM SARL transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name <instagrampro.cam> which differed from the named Respondent (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication regarding Notice of Change - Multiple Underlying Registrants to the Complainant on December 10, 2024, with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrars, requesting the Complainant to either file separate complaint(s) for the disputed domain names <myinstapro.org>, <instagrampro.cam>, <instapro.com.co> and page 2 <iinstapro.net> associated with different underlying registrants or alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in fact the same entity and/or that all domain names are under common control. The Complainant filed a first amended Complaint on December 20, 2024, requested to add the disputed domain names <instapro.live> and <instaproapkdownloads.net> into the proceeding and requested consolidation of the dispute. On December 23, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the newly added disputed domain names. On December 24, 2024, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names <instapro.live> and <instaproapkdownloads.net> which differed from the named Respondents and contact information in the first amended Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 26, 2024, with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrars, requesting the Complainant to either file separate complaint(s) for the disputed domain names <instaproapkdownloads.net> and <instapro.live> associated with different underlying registrants or alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in fact the same entity and/or that all domain names are under common control. The Complainant filed a second amended Complaint on December 28, 2024, and requested consolidation of the dispute. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 6, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 26, 2025. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on January 31, 2025. The Center appointed Andrea Mondini as the sole panelist in this matter on February 6, 2025. 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. On February 10, 2025, the Panel issued a Procedural Order requesting the Complainant to resubmit the amended Complaint to reflect the correct Registrar for the disputed domain names <instapro.com.co> and <iinstapro.net> by February 13, 2025, and providing the Respondents with three days from receipt of the Complainant’s submission to submit any comments. On February 10, 2025, the Complainant submitted a third amended Complaint. The Respondents did not submit any comments thereon. 4. Factual Background The Complainant, Instagram, LLC (also commonly known as “Insta”), is a world-wide online photo and video sharing social-networking application. The Complainant was launched in 2010 and was acquired by Facebook, Inc. (now Meta Platforms, Inc.) in 2012. Today Instagram is one of the leading video sharing and editing software and online social network, with more than 2.4 billion monthly active accounts worldwide. page 3 The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations in several jurisdictions, including: TRADEMARK JURISDICTION REGISTRATION NUMBER REGISTRATION DATE INTERNATIONAL CLASS INSTAGRAM United States 4,146,057 May 22, 2012 9 INSTA United States 5,061,916 October 18, 2016 9 INSTAGRAM European Union 014493886 December 24, 2015 25, 35, 38, 41, 45 INSTA European Union 014810535 May 23, 2018 9 United States 5,299,116 October 3, 2017 9 The Complainant holds several domain names, among them <instagram.com> which hosts its main website. Because the Respondents did not file a Response, not much is known about the Respondents. The disputed domain names were registered on the following dates: <instagrampro.cam> January 19, 2024 <instapro.com.co> March 17, 2023 <iinstapro.net> January 18, 2024 <myinstapro.org> January 21, 2024 <instapro.live> April 30, 2024 <instaproapkdownloads.net> November 25, 2024 According to the evidence submitted with the Complaint, each of the disputed domain names redirects to a website titled “Insta Pro APK” that purports to offer for download a modified APK version of the Instagram application, with the following wording: “InstaPro is a customized version of the official Version of Instagram that allows user to enjoy the additional features [...]”. The acronym “APK” stands for “Android Application Package Kit”. The Respondents’ websites feature a pink/purple color scheme that is similar to the gradient color scheme of the Complainant’s Instagram platform. The Respondents’ websites also make prominent reference to the Complainant’s INSTAGRAM trademark and feature similar versions of the Complainant’s “Instagram” logo and figurative trademark on the websites themselves and as a favicon. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain names. Notably, the Complainant contends as follows: The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the INSTAGRAM and INSTA trademarks in which the Complainant has rights, because <instagrampro.cam> incorporates the INSTAGRAM trademark in its entirety and the other five disputed domain names incorporate the INSTA trademark in its entirety. The addition of the terms “my”, “pro”, “i” and/or “apkdownloads” to the respective disputed domain names is not sufficient to prevent a finding of confusing similarity. page 4 The Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Respondents have not been authorized by the Complainant to use its trademarks, are not commonly known by the disputed domain names, and there is no evidence of the Respondents’ use, or demonstrable preparation to use, the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. To the contrary, the Respondents’ websites purport to offer an unauthorized modified APK version of the Complainant’s Instagram application, with additional features that are not offered on the Complainant’s application, including the ability to download Instagram content, which does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondents’ use of the disputed domain names does not comply with the Instagram Terms of Use that prohibit to “modify, translate, create derivative works of or reverse-engineer our products or their components”. The disputed domain names were registered in bad faith because it is obvious that the Respondents had knowledge of both the Complainant and its well-known trademarks INSTAGRAM and INSTA at the time it registered the disputed domain names. The Respondents’ intent to target the Complainant when registering the disputed domain names may be inferred from the contents of the Respondents’ websites, which makes explicit reference to the Complainant’s INSTAGRAM and INSTA trademarks. Respondents are using the disputed domain names in bad faith, by intentionally attempting to attract for financial gain Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondents’ websites. The lack of a prominent or accurate disclaimer on the homepage of the Respondents’ websites to clarify the Respondents’ relationship (or lack thereof) with the Complainant further adds to the confusion caused by the disputed domain names and constitutes additional evidence of the Respondents’ bad faith. Furthermore, the Respondents failed to respond to the Complainant’s lawyers contact form notice in relation to the disputed domain names <myinstapro.org>, <iinstapro.net> and <instapro.com.co>. 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, 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. 6.1. Consolidation: Multiple Respondents The third amended Complaint was filed in relation to nominally different domain name registrants. The Complainant alleges that the domain name registrants are the same entity or mere alter egos of each other, or under common control. The Complainant requests the consolidation of the Complaint against the multiple disputed domain name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules. The disputed domain name registrants did not comment on the Complainant’s request. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. page 5 In addressing the Complainant’s request, the Panel will consider whether (i) the disputed domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 4.11.2. As regards common control, the Panel notes that the fact that almost all of the disputed domain names are redirected to the same website clearly indicates that the disputed domain names are subject to common control. Moreover, the disputed domain names follow a similar naming pattern whereby each of the disputed domain names includes the Complainant’s INSTA or INSTAGRAM trademark together with the term “pro”. As regards fairness and equity, the Panel sees no reason why consolidation of the disputes would be unfair or inequitable to any Party. Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain name registrants (referred to hereinafter as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding. 6.2. Substantive issues A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the entirety of the INSTAGRAM mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name <instagrampro.cam>. Likewise, the entirety of the INSTA trademark is reproduced in its entirety within the other five disputed domain names. Although the addition of other terms such as here “my”, “pro”, “i” and/or “apkdownloads” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds that in the present case the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.8. The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) in the respective disputed domain names is a standard registration requirement and as such may be disregarded under the confusing similarity test under the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.11.1. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established for all of the disputed domain names. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that for a complainant to prove that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult 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 (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come page 6 forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.1. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Prior UDRP panels have recognized that service providers using a domain name that contains a third-party trademark may be making a bona fide offering of goods or services and thus have a legitimate interest in such domain name. Whether or not this is the case is typically assessed based on the factors listed in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 : (i) the respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue; (ii) the respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods or services; (iii) the site must accurately and prominently disclose the registrant’s relationship with the trademark holder; and (iv) the respondent must not try to “corner the market” in domain names that reflect the trademark. The Panel notes that the Respondent’s website purports to offer for download an unauthorized modified APK version of the Complainant’s Instagram application. As such, the Respondent cannot be said to be using the Respondent’s website to actually offer the goods or services at issue, namely the original Instagram application. The Respondent’s website features a disclaimer containing the following sentence: “We are not connected to Instagram or any other social media platform.” In the Panel’s view, this disclaimer appears to be far from prominent and unlikely to be seen by most users of the site. Considering the prominent use of the Complainant’s trademarks and similar logos and color schemes on the Respondent’s site, the Panel finds the Respondent’s disclaimer to be ineffective in dispelling the confusion caused by the disputed domain names and the website content, and notes that Internet users will in any event have been enticed to the Respondent’s website before seeing that disclaimer. Furthermore, the disputed domain names themselves suggest a connection or affiliation between the Complainant and the Respondent which in fact does not exist. Based on the available record, the Panel thus finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.2.1. In the view of the Panel, noting that that the Complainant’s trademark predates the registration of the disputed domain names and considering that the Complainant’s trademark is well-known and that the disputed domain names redirect to a website featuring the Complainant’s trademarks and references to its services, it is obvious that the Respondent targeted the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain names. In the circumstances of this case, this is evidence of registration in bad faith. The impression given by this redirected website would cause Internet users to believe that the Respondent is somehow associated with the Complainant when, in fact, it is not. The Panel holds that by using the disputed domain names, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet page 7 users to its websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its websites in the sense of Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv). Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy with regard to the disputed domain names. 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 <iinstapro.net>, <instagrampro.cam>, <instaproapkdownloads.net>, <instapro.com.co>, <instapro.live> and <myinstapro.org> be transferred to the Complainant. /Andrea Mondini/ Andrea Mondini Sole Panelist Date: February 26, 2025
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around iinstapro.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.