Exploreig.com

The timeline behind exploreig.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Instagram, LLC v. hasham ali Case No. D2025-0766 1. The Parties The Complainant is Instagram, LLC, United States of America, represented by Greenberg Traurig, LLP, United States of America. The Respondent is hasham ali, Pakistan. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <exploreig.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was f iled with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 25, 2025. On February 25, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 25, 2025, 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 (“Registration Private, Domains By Pro xy”) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 26, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amendment to the Complaint on March 4, 2025. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center f ormally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 5, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was March 25, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on March 28, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Manuel Moreno-To rres as the sole panelist in this matter on March 31, 2025. The Panel f inds 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 United States of America company and a wo rld-renowned online photo and video sharing social networking application, Instagram. The Complainant is the owner of a portfolio of trademarks in connection to IG and INSTAGRAM in dif f erent jurisdictions. By way of example: Intellectual Property India f or IG with registration number 4016681, registered on December 4, 2018; United States Patent and Trademark Office for INSTAGRAM, with registration Number 4146057, registered on May 22, 2012; Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan for INSTAGRAM with registration number 398684, registered on April 23, 2018. The disputed domain name was registered on August 3, 2021, and resolves to a website where a modified version of the Complainant’s INSTAGRAM design trademarks is displayed and of f ering an anonymous Instagram viewer and downloader tool. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy f or a transf er of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the IG trademark remains recognizable in the disputed domain name. Further, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services since it is using Complainant’s trademarks in violation of the prohibitions expressly set out in its terms of use. Likewise, the Respondent is encouraging users of Complainant’s services to violate its terms of use via the scraping of user content or data f rom Complainant’s platform. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor is a licensee of the Complainant and neither is affiliated with the Complainant in any way. Moreover, the Respondent has composed the disputed domain name with Complainant’s IG trad emark and together with Respondent’s website content specifically targeting the Complainant which entails a high risk of implied af f iliation with the Complainant. The Complainant contends that Oki Data criteria does not apply since Complainant prohibits the registration or use of domain names incorporating Complainant’s marks. The Complainant f inds that IG is highly distinctive and a common abbreviation of the INSTAGRAM trademark, widely associated with the Complainant. Due to the renown of the Complainant’s INSTAGRAM and IG trademarks it is inconceivable that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant and its trademarks. page 3 The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to exploit the goodwill and reputation attached to Complainant’s INSTAGRAM and IG trademarks for commercial gain by attracting Internet users to its website and offering them derivative and ancillary services related to the Complainant. In such use, the Respondent is displaying a disclaimer not likely to be seen by a regular consumer f ound in a FAQ requiring user interaction to become visible. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must satisf y the Panel that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a 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 was registered and is being used in bad f aith. There are no exceptional circumstances within paragraph 5(f ) of the Rules to prevent the Panel f rom determining the dispute based upon the Complaint, notwithstanding the f ailure of the Respondent to f ile a Response. Under paragraph 14(a) of the Rules in the event of such a “default” the Panel is still required “to proceed with a decision on the complaint”, whilst under paragraph 14(b) it “shall draw such inf erences theref rom as it considers appropriate”. This dispute resolution procedure is accepted by the domain name registrant as a condition of registration. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the f irst element f unctions 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 of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“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 f inds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, here, “exp lo re”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.8. The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established. 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. page 4 Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving 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 of ten 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 f orward 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 f ails to come f orward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima f acie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come f orward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Indeed, none of the circumstances described in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy can be inf erred f rom the f ile. The Panel notes that the Respondent not only reproduces the Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name but also reproduces a modified version of its design trademark while of f ering services related to the Complainant. The composition of the disputed domain name coupled with its use affirms the Respondent’s intention of taking unfair advantage of the likelihood of conf usion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant as to the origin or affiliation of the website at the dispute domain name. Further, the Panel f inds that the effectively hidden disclaimer on the corresponding site does not provide rights or legitimate interest. On the contrary, such action strengthens the conclusion that the Respondent tried to impersonate o r f alsely suggest endorsement by the Complainant. The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, f or 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 f aith. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, f or commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as set out in paragraph 4(b )(iv) o f the Policy. This finding is based on the offering of ancillary services related to the Complainant under the name “Explore IG” (displaying a f igurative element very similar to the Complainant’s f igurative trademark) together with pop-up ads offers when Internet users attempt to use Respondent’s services. 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 f aith. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.2.1. The Panel recognizes the distinctive and well-known character of the Complainant’s trademarks. The Panel f inds that the Respondent targeted the Complainant and its trademarks when registering the disputed domain name. The Panel f inds it most likely that the Respondent knew about the Complainant and its f amous trademarks due to their broad recognition and use. Such knowledge is af f irmed by the later use ref erencing the Complainant’s trademarks, as well as the f act that “IG” in connection to social media applications generally ref ers to the Complainant. The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 5 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <exploreig.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Manuel Moreno-Torres/ Manuel Moreno-Torres Sole Panelist Date: April 14, 2025

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.