Facebbbook.com

The timeline behind facebbbook.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 AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Meta Platforms, Inc. v. Bryan Herrera Case No. D2025-4254 1. The Parties The Complainant is Meta Platforms, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Perkins Coie, LLP, United States . The Respondent is Bryan Herrera, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <facebbbook.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 16, 2025. On October 17, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same day, 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 Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 20, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on October 21, 2025. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 October 24, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 13, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 18, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Gary Saposnik as the sole panelist in this matter on November 24, 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 Complainant is Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly Facebook, Inc.), a United States company that was founded in 2004. It is a leading provider of online social-media and social networking services through the Complainant’s Facebook platform, with over three billion monthly active users and over two billion daily active users on average worldwide. Facebook’s social-networking services are provided in more than 70 languages, and is also available as an application for mobile devices. Given the online nature of the Complainant’s business, the Complainant’s domain names consisting of its trademarks are a primary way for its users to utilize the Complainant’s services. The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for FACEBOOK, FB, F and various stylized and design trademarks in many jurisdictions throughout the world, including the following registrations: - FACEBOOK, United States Trademark Registration No. 3734637, registered January 5, 2010, in classes 9, 38, 41, and 42; - FACEBOOK, European Union Trademark Registration No. 005585518, registered May 25, 2011, in classes 35, 41, 42, and 45; - FACEBOOK (figurative), International Trademark Registration No. 1075094, registered July 16, 2010, in classes 9, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, and 45. The Complainant is the registrant of numerous domain names consisting of its trademarks, including <facebook.com>, and these are a primary way for its users worldwide to make use of the Complainant’s services. The registrations including the FACEBOOK trademarks are under a wide range of gTLDs and ccTLDs. The Complainant also has developed a strong presence online by being active on various social- media platforms, including X (formerly Twitter), LinkedIn, and Instagram. Facebook’s Instagram account has over six million followers. The Respondent, located in the United States, registered the disputed domain name on February 27, 2025. The disputed domain name redirects to third party websites containing pornographic content. 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 name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s well-known FACEBOOK trademark, adding two additional letters “bb” between the terms “Face” and “Book”. The addition of the letters “bb” is not sufficient to dispel the ensuing confusing similarity the Complainant’s trademark, as common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. See Facebook Inc. v. Lin Zong Xing and Wang Di, WIPO Case No. D2021-3483; WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9. page 3 The Complainant avers that the Respondent has no rights nor legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or has any rights in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has neither acquired nor applied for a trademark registration for “Facebbbook”, or any variation thereof as reflected in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, nor are they affiliated with the Complainant in any way. Additionally, the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to make any use of its FACEBOOK trademarks, whether in a domain name or a mobile app, in the use of its logos on the website, or otherwise. The Respondent is effectively impersonating or suggesting sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant, as the disputed domain name is composed of the Complainant’s trademark, together with additional letters, which are intended to target the Complainant’s platforms, services and customers. The formulation of the disputed domain name, coupled with the Respondent’s website content entails a high risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant, and cannot constitute fair use. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. Further, the directing of a domain name to adult-oriented content is not a bona fide offering of goods or services. See Meta Platforms, Inc. v. xiao ling yang, WIPO Case No. D2022-3800; Instagram, LLC v. Yi Mo Niam Ai Ni, WIPO Case No. D2020-2948. Lastly, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent knew of the Complainant’s rights to the FACEBOOK trademarks when it registered the disputed domain name. The Complainant’s FACEBOOK trademark is inherently distinctive and widely known throughout the world. It is inconceivable for the Respondent to argue that they were not aware of the Complainant’s FACEBOOK trademark when they registered the disputed domain name. At the time of the registration of the disputed domain name, the Complainant’s Facebook platform had amassed three billion users worldwide. In choosing a domain name that so closely resembles the Complainant’s FACEBOOK trademark to promote adult-oriented content, the Respondent is taking advantage of a complainant’s mark for commercial gain, which supports a finding of bad faith under the UDRP Policy. See Instagram, LLC v. Wilson Ren, WIPO Case No. D2022-4313. The Complainant sent notifications to the Respondent demanding that the Respondent cease all unauthorized use of its FACEBOOK trademarks, with the Respondent failing to respond to any correspondence from the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 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 the Complainant’s FACEBOOK 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. The addition of the letters “bb” between “face” and “book” is an obvious or intentional misspelling of the Complainant’s FACEBOOK trademark. Panel have consistently held that a page 4 domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9. 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 name. 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 name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, is not a licensee of the Complainant, nor are they affiliated with the Complainant in any way. Additionally, the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to make any use of its FACEBOOK trademarks, whether in a domain name or a mobile app, in the use of its logos on the website, or otherwise. The Respondent’s formulation of the disputed domain name, along with the Respondent’s website content entails a high risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant and does not constitute fair use. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. Further, the directing of a domain name to adult-oriented content is not a bona fide offering of goods or services. See Meta Platforms, Inc. v. xiao ling yang, WIPO Case No. D2022-3800; Instagram, LLC v. Yi Mo Niam Ai Ni, WIPO Case No. D2020-2948. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect users to an adult-oriented site for commercial gain, and causing tarnishment to the Complainant’s mark, cannot support a claim to rights or legitimate interests. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.3. 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name many years after the Complainant acquired trademark rights in its well-known FACEBOOK trademark. With the Respondent living in the United States, and the Complainant’s FACEBOOK platform having amassed more than three billion users at the time of the Respondent’s registration, it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant and its FACEBOOK marks. page 5 Panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. 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 addition to the typosquatting in the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent is redirecting the disputed domain name to a website containing pornographic adult-content, for commercial gain. The Respondent has clearly targeted the Complainant to take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s FACEBOOK trademark by attracting Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. Such use of a domain name that so closely resembles the Complainant’s FACEBOOK trademark to promote adult-oriented content for commercial gain supports a finding of bad faith under the UDRP Policy. See Instagram, LLC v. Wilson Ren, WIPO Case No. D2022-4313. 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 name <facebbbook.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Gary Saposnik/ Gary Saposnik Sole Panelist Date: December 8, 2025

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