Instaproapkdownload.net, Instaproapk.net

The timeline behind instaproapkdownload.net

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. Aaron Choi and White Wolves LLC Case No. D2026-1180 1. The Parties The Complainant is Instagram, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France. The Respondents are Aaron Choi, United States, and White Wolves LLC, United States. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <instaproapkdownload.net> and <instaproapk.net> are registered with Porkbun LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 19, 2026. On March 19, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On March 20, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response, disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent (Whois Privacy, Private by Design, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 23, 2026 with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrar, requesting the Complainant to either a file separate complaint for the disputed domain name associated with a different underlying registrant or, alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in fact the same entity and/or that all domain names are under common control. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 26, 2026. 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”). page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 30, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 19, 2026. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on April 20, 2026. The Center appointed Dennis A. Foster as the sole panelist in this matter on April 27, 2026. 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 the United States company Instagram, LLC which was created in 2010. It specializes in a software application (or “app”) that offers photo and video sharing. In 2012, the Complainant was purchased by Meta Platforms (formerly Facebook). The Complainant now has several billion monthly account holders and is commonly referred to as “Insta” as well as “Instagram”. The Complainant operates a number of domain names that contain its INSTA and INSTAGRAM trademarks, has its main website at the domain name <instagram.com>, and is active on other social media platforms such as Facebook and LinkedIn. The Complainant’s worldwide INSTA trademarks include: United States Trademark Registration No. 5061916, INSTA, registered on October 18, 2016, international class 9 for downloadable computer software for transmission of photographs; and European Union Trademark Registration No. 14810535, INSTA, registered on May 23, 2018, international class 9 per above goods. The Respondents are a person/entity that registered the two disputed domain names on October 14, 2024 <instaproapkdownload.net>, and June 17, 2022 <instaproapk.net>. The two disputed domain names at first resolved or redirected (in the case of the disputed domain name <instaproapk.net>) to the Respondents’ website titled “Insta Pro” at “www.instaproapkdownload.net” which promoted and offered for download a modified APK (“Android Package Kit”) version of Instagram known as “Insta Pro APK”. This unauthorized third party-developed software purportedly provides functions that go beyond those offered in the official Instagram app. It claims, inter alia, to allow a user to save media instantly to the user’s device. The Respondent’s website prominently used the Complainant’s INSTAGRAM and INSTA trademarks, logo and color scheme. The Respondent’s website did not contain any formal disclaimer clarifying its relationship with the Complainant, however, in the bottom featured the following: “All logos, trademarks and media related to Insta Pro belong to their respective owners and are used [...] for informational purposes only”. However, the “Contact Us” page displayed the following language: “We are not the official developers of Instagram or any modified apps”. On January 26, 2026, the Complainant sent a cease-and desist-letter to the Respondents using the contact information on the Respondents’ website. The Respondents did not reply but, shortly thereafter, the two disputed domain names ceased resolving or redirecting to the Respondents’ website. They now point to an inactive error page. The Respondents were also respondents in a similar case WhatsApp LLC v White Wolves LLC, Aaron Choi, WIPO Case No. D2025-3500, where the panel ordered the transfer of all disputed domain names to the Complainant’s related company WhatsApp LLC. page 3 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. In brief, the Complainant contends that: - The disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s INSTA trademark. - The fact that the Complainant’s INSTA trademark is recognizable in the disputed domain names is sufficient to establish confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s trademark. - The Respondents are unable to invoke any of the circumstances that would demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. - The Complainant has not authorized the Respondents to use the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain names or otherwise. - The Respondents are not making a bona fide use of the Complainant’s trademark because the Respondents purportedly offered for download an unauthorised modified APK version of the Complainant's Instagram application. - The Respondents are not commonly known by the disputed domain names. - The Respondents are not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. - The fact that the disputed domain names currently are being passively held does not confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondents. - The Complainant’s INSTA trademark is a renowned trademark that has been in continuous use since 2010. Therefore, the Respondents cannot credibly contend that they were not aware of the Complainant’s trademark when they registered the disputed domain names in 2022 and 2024. Indeed, the Respondents referred to the Complainant and used its trademarks and logos on their website from the very beginning. - The Respondents probably derived commercial benefit of some kind from their unauthorized offering of a modified Complainant’s app to the public. - The Respondents did not place an accurate and prominent disclaimer on their website to show they did not have a relationship with the Complainant. - The Respondents have begun to hold passively the disputed domain names in bad faith. B. Respondents The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Pursuant to Policy paragraphs 4(a)(i) - (iii), the Panel may render a decision for the Complainant and grant a transfer of the disputed domain names, if the Complainant shows that: page 4 - The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; - The Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and - The disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. Request for consolidation of the Respondents The amended Complaint was filed on March 26, 2026, in relation to nominally different domain name registrants. The Complainant alleges that the domain name registrants are in fact the same person/entity or mere alter egos of each other, or under common control. The Complainant requests the consolidation of the disputes against the two disputed domain name registrants pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(f) and paragraph 10(e) of the Rules. The Respondents, after being notified of the Complaint, did not comment on the Complainant’s request. Where a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and whether (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency also is important in a panel’s consideration of a consolidation. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.11.2. In the present case, the Complainant argues that the following factors support an inference that the two domain names are subject to common control. First, the domain names initially resolved or redirected to the same website. Second, both domain names were registered through the same proxy registration service (i.e., Private by Design, LLC) and are registered with the same Registrar (i.e., Porkbun LLC). Third, the two domain names are similar, combining the Complainant’s INSTA trademark with the terms “pro” and “apk”, with or without the additional term “download” followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.net”. The Panel finds the Complainant’s arguments convincing and therefore decides to allow the Complaint to proceed on a consolidated basis. The Panel sees no reason why this would be unfair to either party, and the Respondents have not objected to the Complainant’s request. This one proceeding for both domain names surely is apt to be more efficient than a separate proceeding for each domain name. Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes against nominally different disputed domain name registrants who will be referred to hereinafter as “the Respondent”. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The first burden of proof for the Complainant under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) is to show that it has relevant trademark rights for this proceeding. In this regard, the Complainant has exhibited copies of its INSTA registered trademarks which the Panel has detailed above in the Factual Background section. The Panel finds this is proof that the Complainant does have relevant trademark rights per the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. Next, the Complainant must show that the two disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to its INSTA trademark. The Complainant’s trademark is readily recognizable in the two disputed domain names, and therefore they are confusingly similar to it. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Panel observes, as the Complainant points out, that in one disputed domain name the Respondent has added “proapkdownload” to the Complainant’s INSTA trademark, while in the second disputed domain name the Respondent added the same terms but left out the term “download”. The Panel finds the Complainant’s INSTA trademark still is readily recognizable, and that therefore the addition of other terms has not prevented the Respondent’s two disputed domain names from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s INSTA trademark. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. page 5 The gTLD “net” should not be taken into account for an identity or confusing similarity analysis. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. The Complainant therefore has met its burden of proof under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant’s second burden of proof, per Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii), is to show that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. In this regard, the consensus in Policy decisions is that, owing to the difficulty of proving a negative, it is sufficient in the first instance that the Complainant make out a prima facie case. Thereafter, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to come forward and show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, although the overall burden of proof remains on the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names without the Complainant’s authorization to use the Complainant’s trademark therein. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent, perhaps via a third party, has modified its app without authorization, and is deriving commercial benefit by purporting to offer the modified app on the Internet. The Panel finds the Complainant thus has met its burden of initially making out at least a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. The Respondent is in default in this proceeding and so has not come forward to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case. Nonetheless, the Panel will review the case record to see whether the Respondent might have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names as allowed under Policy paragraphs 4(c)(i), (ii) or (iii). Under Policy paragraph 4(c)(i), the Respondent needs to show that, before being notified of the Complaint, the Respondent was using the disputed domain names to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or was making demonstrable preparations to do so. The Respondent in this proceeding actually was doing something quite different: it was having a third party (or so the Respondent claims) modify the Complainant’s INSTA software and then offering it on a website designed to resemble the Complainant’s. The Panel finds this kind of unauthorized use cannot be a bona fide offering of goods or services. After receiving cease-and-desist notification from the Complainant on January 26, 2026, the Respondent took down its websites but passively held the two disputed domain names. This also is not a bona fide offering of goods or services. See WhatsApp LLC v. White Wolves LLC, Aaron Choi above. The Respondent cannot avail itself of Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii) because the record does not show that the Respondent was ever commonly known as the disputed domain names. And finally, the Panel finds the Respondent is not making a fair use or a noncommercial use of the disputed domain names. On the contrary, the Panel infers that the Respondent, more likely than not, derives commercial benefit from offering the Complainant’s modified software even though the Respondent claims it is free. Per the above discussion, the Panel finds that the Complainant has carried its burden of proof under Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii) to show that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Policy at paragraph 4(b) lays out four non-exhaustive grounds for finding a respondent has registered and is using a disputed domain name in bad faith, but other grounds may also be applicable. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. page 6 In the present case, the Respondent has used the Complainant’s trademark in the confusingly similar disputed domain names at a website offering, supposedly for free, a modified version of the Complainant’s photo and video application. This is bad faith within the meaning of Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv). The Panel is convinced the Respondent targeted the Complainant because of the website content and complex software business scheme the Respondent used. After the Complainant served on the Respondent a formal legal notice of cease-and-desist on January 26, 2026, the Respondent took down its websites but held passively the disputed domain names. The Panel finds this is passive holding in bad faith: the Respondent was well aware of the renown of the Complainant’s INSTA trademark when it registered the disputed domain names and probably was waiting for an opportunity to resume using the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain names and on the associated websites. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. The Respondent’s equivocal disclaimer on the “contact us” page, and its disclaimer-like statement at the bottom of its website did little to diminish the confusion the Respondent had created with its domain names that deliberately created an impression of affiliation with the Complainant or to cure its overall bad faith. Based on the above discussion, the Panel finds the Complainant has carried its burden of proof under Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii) to show that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. 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 <instaproapkdownload.net> and <instaproapk.net> be transferred to the Complainant. /Dennis A. Foster/ Dennis A. Foster Sole Panelist Date: May 11, 2026

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