Insta360.community

The timeline behind insta360.community

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 Arashi Vision Inc., dba Insta360 v. Alec Garcia Case No. D2025-4399 1. The Parties The Complainant is Arashi Vision Inc., dba Insta360, China, represented by Di Li Law, P.C., United States of America (“United States”). The Respondent is Alec Garcia, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <insta360.community> is registered with Name.com, Inc. (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 24, 2025. On October 27, 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 28, 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 (Id entity Redacted For Privacy) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 29, 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 amended Complaints on October 29, 2025. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaints 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 30, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 19, 2025. The Respondent sent an email communication to the Center on November 6, 2025. The Center sent an email regarding the possible settlement to the Parties on November 6, 2025. However, the Complainant did not request suspension bef ore the due date. The Respondent did not file any formal response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the commencement of the panel appointment process on November 21, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Jeremy Speres as the sole panelist in this matter on November 27, 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 uncontested facts are as follows. The Complainant has, since 2015, produced and sold 360° cameras, virtual reality cameras, action cameras, webcams and other camera products and related sof tware under its INSTA360 mark. The Complainant’s mark is registered in various jurisdictions, including: United States Trademark Registration No. 5271872 INSTA360 (stylized) in classes 9, and 42, having a registration date of August 22, 2017, and a use in commerce date of January 6, 2016; and European Union Trademark Registration No. 018270821 INSTA360 (device) in classes 7, and 12, having a registration date of October 23, 2020. The Complainant’s primary website is hosted at its domain name <insta360.com>, which was registered in 2014. The disputed domain name was registered on September 28, 2019, and currently does not resolve to an active website. The Complainant’s evidence establishes that the disputed domain name previously resolved to a website entitled “Insta360 Community”, using a logo that is virtually identical to the Complainant’s European Union Trademark Registration No. 018270821 referenced above. The website appears to have displayed posts, including videos, f rom users of the Complainant’s cameras, with some specif ically ref erencing models of the Complainant’s cameras using their unique model names, e.g. “Insta360 ONE X2”. One of the posts was f ro m a user named “Insta 360 Of f icial”. 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 t hat the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad f aith in order to take advantage of confusion with the Complainant’s mark for the Respondent’s commercial gain. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply substantively to the Complainant’s contentions, except to state: “What do I need to do to transfer the domain over to Insta360? There was never any malicious intent here, I simply created a website that let users view Insta360 content on the web because I am a huge f an of their products. The code was f ully open source at [...].” page 3 6. Discussion and Findings 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 entirety of the verbal element of the Complainant’s mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. To the extent that the Complainant’s registered marks include stylized or f igurative elements, these elements are largely disregarded for purposes of assessing identity or conf using similarity under the f irst element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.10. 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. 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. The Respondent claims to be a f an of the Complainant’s products and claims that the disputed domain name’s website was intended to “let users view Insta360 content on the web”. The Respondent may, theref ore, claim rights or legitimate interests under the fair use provisions of paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy. For purposes of assessing fair use under UDRP paragraph 4(c)(iii), a respondent’s f an site must be active, genuinely noncommercial, and clearly distinct from any official complainant site. Where the domain name is identical to a trademark, panels have tended to find that a general right to operate a fan site (even one that is supportive of the mark owner) does not necessarily extend to registering or using a domain name that is identical to the complainant’s trademark, particularly as the domain name may be misunderstood by Internet users as being somehow sponsored or endorsed by the trademark owner. In such cases, where the domain name is identical to the trademark, as in this case, panels have also noted that this prevents the trademark holder f rom exercising its rights to the mark and so managing its presence on the Internet, including through a corresponding email address. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.7. page 4 In this case, the disputed domain name is identical to the verbal elements of the Complainant’s mark, disregarding the figurative and stylized elements which are incapable of representation in domain names. As such, the disputed domain name itself suggests that it is associated with the Complainant. The choice of the Top-Level Domain (“.community”) also suggests that the disputed domain name is the Complainant’s own community discussion forum, noting that the Complainant operates its own very similar community f orum at “f orums.insta360.com”. There is no attempt on the Respondent’s website to distinguish itself from the Complainant through, e.g., a disclaimer. The use of a logo that is virtually identical to the Complainant’s registered logo, and the inclusion of posts from a user named “Insta 360 Official”, both falsely suggest that the website is associated with the Complainant. There is thus a risk that the public would assume that the disputed domain name is authorised by or affiliated with the Complainant, which is not a fair use and does not support a legitimate interest. See Lumsa - Libera Università Maria SS. Assunta v. Host Master, 1337 Services LLC, WIPO Case No . D2023-1939. The disputed domain name and its use thus cannot constitute f air use under the Policy. 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. Given the indicators of targeting discussed in relation to the second element above, the Panel considers it more likely than not that the Respondent intended to take advantage of conf usion surrounding whether the disputed domain name’s website was an of f icial presence of the Complainant, f alling squarely within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel draws an adverse inference from the Respondent’s failure to take part meaningfully in the present proceeding where an explanation is certainly called f or. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.3. The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 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 <insta360.community> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Jeremy Speres/ Jeremy Speres Sole Panelist Date: December 3, 2025

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