Whatsappplus.org

The timeline behind whatsappplus.org

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 WhatsApp LLC v. Shoaib Ahmed Case No. D2025-4231 1. The Parties The Complainant is WhatsApp LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France. The Respondent is Shoaib Ahmed, Germany. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <whatsappplus.org> is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu. (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 15, 2025. On October 15, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 16, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verif ication response, disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Whois Privacy Protection Foundation) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 16, 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 amended Complaint on October 20, 2025. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended 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 October 27, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was November 16, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on November 17, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Erica Aoki as the sole panelist in this matter on November 24, 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 the provider of one of the world’s most widely used mobile messaging applications. Founded in 2009 and acquired by Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly Facebook, Inc.) in 2014, WhatsApp allows users worldwide to exchange messages for free via smartphones, including iPhone and Android devices. Its main website, available at “www.whatsapp.com”, also provides access to the WhatsApp messaging platform. Since its launch, WhatsApp has become one of the f astest growing and most widely used mobile applications in the world, with well over 2.8 billion monthly active users as of January 2024. WhatsApp has acquired considerable global reputation and goodwill, consistently ranking among the top 25 f ree mobile applications on Google Play and the Apple App Store and appearing on TechRadar’s lists of leading Android applications. According to Data.ai, WhatsApp is also among the most downloaded applications f or iOS devices worldwide. Ref lecting its global presence, the Complainant owns numerous domain names containing the WHATSAPP trademark under a wide range of generic and country-code Top-Level Domains (“TLDs”). The Complainant has also developed a strong online presence through its official social-media channels. Its official Facebook page has over 45 million followers, its official X (f ormerly Twitter) account has 5.6 million f ollowers, and the Complainant also maintains of f icial channels on YouTube and LinkedIn. The Complainant owns multiple trademark registrations f or WHATSAPP worldwide, including - United States Trademark Registration No. 3939463 (registered April 5, 2011), - European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 009986514 (registered October 25, 2011), and - International Trademark Registration No. 1085539 (registered May 24, 2011). The Complainant also owns f igurative trademark registrations f or its telephone logo, including - International Trademark Registration No. 1109890 (registered on January 10, 2012), - European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 10496602 (registered on May 18, 2012). The disputed domain name was registered on July 29, 2024 and it resolves to a Spanish-language website titled “WhatsApp Plus,” which offers for download an unauthorized modified APK version of the WhatsApp application, promoted as providing additional f eatures not available in the of f icial app. The website includes step-by-step installation guides, instructions on avoiding account bans, and a comparison table contrasting “WhatsApp Of f icial” with the modif ied version. It also promotes other unauthorized versions such as “WhatsApp iPhone (Fouad iOS),” “YO WhatsApp,” and “FM WhatsApp.” The homepage describes “WhatsApp Plus” as a modif ied version of the of f icial app of f ering enhanced privacy controls, customization options, larger file-sharing capabilities, and additional f unctionalities. The website acknowledges that the use of such modified applications violates WhatsApp’s Terms of Service, may lead to temporary or permanent account blocking, and may expose users to security risks such as malware and data breaches. It also notes that these modified versions are not available on of f icial app stores and must be downloaded from third-party sources, including the Respondent’s website. The Respondent’s website f eatures modif ied versions of the Complainant’s f igurative telephone logo, including as a f avicon. The site contains disclaimer-style statements noting that WhatsApp Plus is not af f iliated with WhatsApp Inc, Meta, or Instagram, but such statements are displayed at the bottom of the page. page 3 On September 12, 2025, the Complainant’s counsel submitted a Registrar registrant contact form seeking to reach the Respondent. No response was received. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied all three elements required under the Policy for the transfer of the disputed domain name. First, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is conf usingly similar to its WHATSAPP trademark. The domain name wholly incorporates the WHATSAPP mark and merely adds the term “plus,” which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The Complainant notes that WHATSAPP remains clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name, consistent with WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), sections 1.7 and 1.8. Prior UDRP panels have likewise held that the addition of the term “plus” to the WHATSAPP mark does not prevent a f inding of conf using similarity. The Complainant theref ore submits that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisf ied. Second, the Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not af f iliated with the Complainant and has never been authorized or licensed to use the WHATSAPP trademark in any form. According to the Complainant, there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or has acquired any trademark rights in “whatsappplus” or any similar term. The Complainant states that the disputed domain name resolves to a website offering unauthorized modified APK version of the WhatsApp application. The website reproduces the Complainant’s trademark and modified versions of its f igurative telephone logo, mimics its branding and color scheme, and provides installation guides and instructions to circumvent account bans. The Complainant argues that such conduct does not constitute a bona f ide of f ering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial use. Rather, it misleads Internet users into believing the website is operated, endorsed, or supported by the Complainant. The Respondent’s use also violates WhatsApp’s Terms of Service, f urther conf irming the absence of any rights or legitimate interests under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Third, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad f aith. The WHATSAPP trademark is inherently distinctive and globally well known, and the Respondent could not credibly have been unaware of it when registering the domain name. The content of the Respondent’s web site – its repeated references to WhatsApp, its use of modif ied versions of the Complainant’s logo – demonstrates that the Respondent intentionally targeted the Complainant’s mark. The Complainant submits that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to attract Internet users f or commercial gain by creating a likelihood of conf usion with the WHATSAPP trademark as to the source, af f iliation, sponsorship, or endorsement of the website. The distribution of unauthorized modif ied APK version disrupts the Complainant’s business, and exposes users to security and privacy risks. Such conduct, the Complainant contends, constitutes clear evidence of bad f aith registration and use under paragraph 4(b )(iv) o f the Po licy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 4 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rig hts; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; (iii) the domain name was registered and is being used in bad f aith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well established that the first element under the Policy f unctions primarily as a standing requirement (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7). The Complainant has demonstrated trademark rights in the WHATSAPP trademark through multiple registrations in various jurisdictions, including, inter alia, the United States, the European Union. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark in its entirety. The only addition is the term “plus”, placed immediately after the WHATSAPP mark, together with the “.org” generic TLD (“g TLD”). Panels have consistently held that the addition of a generic, descriptive, or other term to a complainant’s trademark does not prevent the finding of confusing similarity where the mark remains clearly recognizable within the domain name (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8). In this case, the WHATSAPP trademark is readily recognizable within the disputed domain name. The addition of the term “plus” does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity. The “.org” gTLD is a technical registration requirement and does not af f ect the assessment of conf using similarity. Accordingly, the Panel f inds that the disputed domain name is conf usingly similar to the Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark. The f irst element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name by showing, for example, a bona fide offering of goods or services, being commonly known by the domain name, or making a legitimate noncommercial or f air use of it. Once a complainant establishes a prima f acie case that the respondent lacks such rights, the burden shif ts to the respondent to produce evidence to the contrary (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1). In this case, the Complainant has established a clear prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant, has never been authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted to use the WHATSAPP trademark, and there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The evidence shows that the disputed domain name resolves to a website purporting to of f er f or download an unauthorized modified APK version of the WhatsApp application. The website prominently reproduces the Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark, displays modified versions of the Complainant’s telephone logo, including as a favicon. The website further includes instructions on how to download and use a modified version of WhatsApp, “WhatsApp Plus”, and provides guidance on avoiding account bans. page 5 Such conduct cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. UDRP panels consistently hold that the use of the Complainant’s mark to promote unauthorized, unlicensed, or modified versions of a Complainant’s sof tware cannot give rise to rights or legitimate interests. The composition of the disputed domain name, WHATSAPP plus the descriptive term “plus”, itself trig g ers a f alse impression of affiliation, as noted in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1, since where a domain name contains a complainant’s mark combined with a term related to its goods or services, such construction may tend to suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. This is particularly true here, where the Respondent’s website explicitly markets its product as a modif ied or enhanced version of WhatsApp. The presence of a disclaimer does not render the Respondent's activities bona f ide under the Policy in the circumstances of this case. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(ii). The Respondent registered the domain name through a privacy service, has provided no indication of identity, and has not come forward with any explanation or evidence of legitimate use. Nor is the Respondent making any legitimate noncommercial or f air use under paragraph 4(c)(iii). The use of the disputed domain name to distribute unauthorized and potentially harmful APK f iles, accompanied by the use of the Complainant’s trademark and a variation of its logo, demonstrates an intent to mislead users rather than any legitimate purpose. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith To satisfy the third element under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the Complainant must demonstrate that the disputed domain name was both registered and is used in bad f aith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides non-exhaustive examples of bad-faith conduct, including intentionally attempting to attract Internet users f or commercial gain by creating a likelihood of conf usion with the complainant’s trademark. The evidence clearly establishes that the Respondent both registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad f aith. The WHATSAPP trademark has been used extensively since 2009 and is unquestionably well known worldwide. The Complainant’s trademark registrations, as well as the Complainant’s extensive and longstanding commercial use of the WHATSAPP mark f or its global messaging service since 2009, all predate the registration of the disputed domain name in July 2024. By the time the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 29, 2024, the Complainant had amassed billions of active users globally, maintained strong online and social-media visibility, and held numerous trademark registrations across jurisdictions. The widespread recognition of the WHATSAPP trad emark has been repeatedly af f irmed by prior UDRP panels. Given this global reputation of the WHATSAPP trademark, the Respondent could not plausibly have been unaware of the Complainant’s rights when registering the disputed domain name. page 6 The Respondent’s subsequent conduct confirms this knowledge: the disputed domain name resolves to a website titled “WhatsApp Plus” that explicitly references WhatsApp, compares the modified APK version with the of ficial WhatsApp application, and features modified versions of the Complainant’s f igurative telephone logo (including as a f avicon). This demonstrates clear targeting of the Complainant and supports an inf erence of bad f aith. The Respondent’s website purports to offer f or download unauthorized and modif ied APK version of the WhatsApp application “WhatsApp Plus”. It provides instructions on how to download and use this modified application and even guidance on how to avoid being banned f or violating WhatsApp’s Terms of Service. Panels consistently hold that using the Complainant’s mark to promote unauthorized or modified versions of that Complainant’s software constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy because it ref lects the Respondent’s intention to intentionally attract users by creating a f alse impression of association, o r endorsement. The Complainant also notes that such unauthorized APK versions expose users to significant security risks, including malware and data breaches, and disrupt the Complainant’s business by diverting users away f rom the of f icial WhatsApp application. Although the Respondent’s website contains certain disclaimer-like statements, they are not prominently displayed and do not cure the overall misleading impression created by the domain name and website design. As panels consistently recognize, disclaimers might not cure bad faith where the domain name itself impersonates or suggests af f iliation with the complainant. The Respondent’s use of a privacy service and its f ailure to respond to the Complainant’s notice sent via Registrar contact request f o rm reinf orce the inf erence of bad f aith. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad f aith. The third element of the Policy is established. 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 <whatsappplus.org> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Erica Aoki/ Erica Aoki Sole Panelist Date: December 2, 2025

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