Instaproapk.click, Instaprohub.com

The timeline behind instaproapk.click

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

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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 Abid, AbidandCO Case No. D2025-3893 1. The Parties The Complainant is Instagram, LLC, United States of America, represented by Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France. The Respondent is Muhammad Abid, AbidandCO, Pakistan. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars The first disputed domain name <instaproapk.click> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “First Registrar”), and the second disputed domain name <instaprohub.com> is registered with Name.com, Inc. (the “Second Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 23, 2025 requesting the transfer of the first disputed domain name <instaproapk.click>. On September 25, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the First Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the first disputed domain name. On September 26, 2025, the First Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the first disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY, Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 26, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the First Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant requested for an extension to submit its amended Complaint until October 7, 2025, which was granted by the Center. The Respondent sent an email to the Center on October 2, 2025. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on October 7, 2025. In its amended Complaint, the Complainant requested that the second disputed domain name <instaprohub.com> be added to the proceeding. On October 8, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Second Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the second disputed domain name. On October 9, 2025, the Second Registrar confirmed that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and provided the contact details. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 10, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Second Registrar. page 2 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 13, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 2, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any formal Response. Accordingly, the Center notified the commencement of the panel appointment process on November 10, 2025. The Center appointed Syed Naqiz Shahabuddin as the sole panelist in this matter on November 10, 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. 4. Factual Background The following summary sets out the uncontested factual submission made by the Complainant: The Complainant owns and operates an online photo and video sharing social-networking application known as Instagram. Since its launch in 2010, Instagram, commonly abbreviated as “Insta”, has rapidly acquired and developed considerable goodwill and renown worldwide. Acquired by Meta Platforms, Inc. in 2012 (formerly Facebook, Inc.), Instagram today is one of the world’s fastest growing photo and video sharing and editing software and online social networks, with more than two billion monthly active accounts worldwide. The Complainant has also made substantial investments to develop a strong presence online by being active on various social-media platforms. Instagram has consistently ranked amongst the top apps for mobile devices, including for iOS and Android operating systems and is one of the most downloaded applications for iOS phones worldwide. The Complainant owns numerous registrations for the trademarks INSTAGRAM and INSTA (“Trademarks”) and variations thereof worldwide including the figurative trademark for a camera device logo in a pink/purple gradient colour scheme. The following table includes a sample of registrations of the Trademarks by the Complainant in selected jurisdictions: Jurisdiction Mark Registration Number Date of Registration Classification of Goods / Services United States of America INSTAGRAM 4,146,057 May 22, 2012 9 INSTA 5,061,916 October 18, 2016 9 European Union INSTAGRAM 14493886 December 24, 2015 35, 38, 41, 45 INSTA 014810535 May 23, 2018 9 Pakistan INSTAGRAM 398679 July 30, 2018 42 International Registration INSTAGRAM 1129314 March 15, 2012 9, 42 The Complainant is also the registrant of numerous domain names comprising the Trademarks under a wide range of generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs) and country code Top-Level Domains. The Complainant’s domain names consisting of the Trademarks are key to its business and a primary way for users to avail themselves of the Complainant’s services. page 3 Each of the disputed domain names resolves to a website titled “InstaPro” that purports to offer for download unauthorized modified Android Package Kit (“APK”) versions of the Complainant’s Instagram application referred to as “Insta Pro apk” and “Insta Pro 2 apk”, with additional functionality that is not offered on the Instagram application, including the ability to download content from the Instagram platform such as photos, videos, reels, IGTV videos, and stories (together, the “Respondent’s websites”). The Respondent’s websites appear to promote other APK versions of the Instagram application in the “Recommended Instagram Mods” section. The Respondent’s websites feature a pink/purple colour scheme that evokes the gradient colour scheme featured on the Complainant’s Instagram platform and makes references to the Trademarks including the figurative trademark of the camera device logo. The Respondent’s websites also feature commercial advertising banners that seek to promote third party products. The disputed domain names were only registered on July 1, 2024, and November 10, 2024, almost 14 years after the launch of Instagram in 2010. 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, inter alia, as follows: The Complainant asserts that the Trademarks are distinctive, are well-known trademarks that are used globally and that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Trademarks for the following reasons: (a) the addition of the “.click” and “.com” gTLD are insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain names from the Trademarks. (b) the Trademarks are the most distinctive element in the disputed domain names and the addition of the terms “pro”, “apk”, and “hub” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the Trademarks. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain names because: (a) the Respondent is not using the disputed domain names in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services. (b) the Respondent is attempting to ride on or to trade off the reputation and goodwill attached to the Trademarks by displaying the Trademarks as well as the Complainant’s figurative camera device logo (and modified versions thereof) on the Respondent’s websites. (c) the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to provide unauthorized modified APK versions of the Instagram application with additional functionality over that provided by the Complainant’s Instagram application violates the Meta Developer Policies (available at https://developers.facebook.com/devpolicy), which apply to Instagram. (d) the Respondent is not a bona fide service provider in that it is not providing services for the proper use of the Complainant’s product. (e) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor was it validly known as such prior to the dates on which the Respondent registered the disputed domain names. The Respondent’s websites fail to accurately and prominently disclose the Respondent’s relationship, or lack thereof, with the page 4 Complainant. The Respondent’s websites may therefore mislead Internet users into believing that they are operated or authorized by the Complainant, when in fact they are not. (f) the Respondent is not using the disputed domain names for a noncommercial or fair use, without intent for commercial gain, but to misleadingly divert consumers. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith and relies on the following: (a) the Respondent registered the dispute domain names, not only with full knowledge of the Complainant’s rights, but also with the intent to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website for the promotion of unauthorized modified versions of the Complainant’s application that may put the online security of Instagram users at risk. (b) the Respondent intended to create confusion with the Complainant and the Trademarks when registering and using the disputed domain names. The circumstances include the Respondent’s websites that purport to offer for download unauthorized APK versions of the Instagram application, repeated references to Instagram, multiple references to the Trademarks and a similar pink/purple colour scheme to the Complainant’s colour scheme along with the Complainant’s camera device logo and figurative trademark (and modified versions thereof). (c) the Respondent's registered the first disputed domain name <instaproapk.click> using a proxy service to mask its identity, the Respondent’s failed to respond to the Registrar registrant contact form notice and provided incomplete registrant contract details. (d) the Respondent is using the disputed domain names to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s websites and the services offered therein. (e) the unauthorized modified APK versions of the Instagram application is likely to disrupt the Complainant’s business by driving Internet users to a third-party application. Such use of the disputed domain names and the unauthorized APK versions of the Instagram application offered for download therein interferes with the intended operation of the Instagram service and does not respect the limits placed on product functionality. (f) the unauthorized APK versions of the application offered by the Respondent purport to enable Internet users to download Instagram content, which is likely to place the privacy and security of Instagram users at risk, as downloaded content may be stored and later used for unauthorized purposes by third parties. B. Respondent The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions. In the email dated October 2, 2025, the Respondent stated that: “I acknowledge receipt of the recent communications regarding Case No. D2025-3893 concerning the domain name instaproapk.click. I understand that the Complainant has requested an extension to amend their Complaint. I will await the Center’s formal Notification of Complaint and related deadlines, at which time I will submit my Response. Thank you for keeping me informed.” 6. Discussion and Findings In order to succeed in its Complaint, the Complainant is required to establish the following elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy: (a) that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and page 5 (b) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain names; and (c) that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. 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 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 finds that the Trademarks are recognizable within the disputed domain names. Although the addition of other characters here, “pro”, “apk” and “hub”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds that the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the Trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The Panel finds the first 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. 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 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 forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. 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. The Complainant has clearly stated that it has not authorized the Respondent in any way to use the Trademarks or to register the disputed domain names. The Complainant has also denied any affiliation or association with the Respondent. The additional terms or characters in the disputed domain names when used in conjunction with the Trademarks do not appear to suggest any alternative, secondary or generic meaning in the English language but rather seeks to draw a link or connection between the Trademarks and the offerings in the Respondent’s page 6 websites. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor was it validly known as such prior to any notice to the Respondent of the dispute. The Respondent does not seem to be using the disputed domain names for a noncommercial or fair use, without intent for commercial gain. The Respondent’s uses the disputed domain names to resolve to the Respondent’s websites that purport to offer for download unauthorized modified APK versions of the Complainant’s Instagram application, with additional features that are not offered on the Complainant’s platform such as the ability to download Instagram content. Additionally, the Respondent’s websites also feature commercial advertising banners that seek to promote third party products. Also noting the findings under the third prong of the Policy, the Panel 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. Past panels often cite paragraph 4(b)(iv) as one of the circumstances to substantiate evidence of bad faith registration and use. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy provides that where a respondent intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its 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 the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location, then this would justify a finding of bad faith. The Panel is cognizant of the reputation and goodwill attached to the Trademarks and the Instagram application and correspondingly, the widespread use thereof by the public at large. Having a base of more than two billion active users worldwide would draw the interest of many Internet users to not only use the Instagram application but to also take commercial advantage of it. In arriving at a finding of whether the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith, the Panel took into account the following factors: (a) the registration dates of the disputed domain names which were almost 14 years after the Trademarks were registered and acquired distinctiveness and global appeal; (b) the inclusion of the Trademarks in the disputed domain names; (c) the manner in which the Respondent uses the disputed domain names to resolve to the Respondent’s websites that purport to offer for download unauthorized modified APK versions of the Complainant's Instagram application, with additional features that are not offered on the Complainant's platform, such as the ability to download Instagram content; (d) the unauthorised use of the Complainant’s intellectual property including multiple references of the Trademarks throughout the Respondent’s websites, the use of the pink/purple colour scheme that evokes the gradient colour scheme featured on the Complainant’s Instagram platform and the figurative trademark of the camera device logo (and modified versions thereof). page 7 (e) the feature commercial advertising banners that seek to promote third party products in the Respondent’s websites. Having reviewed the record, therefore, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names constitute bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 <instaproapk.click> and <instaprohub.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Syed Naqiz Shahabuddin/ Syed Naqiz Shahabuddin Sole Panelist Date: November 19, 2025

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