Whatsappswagb.com

The timeline behind whatsappswagb.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 WhatsApp, LLC v. Alee Khan Case No. D2026-1202 1. The Parties The Complainant is WhatsApp, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Perkins Coie LLP, United States. The Respondent is Alee Khan, Pakistan. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <whatsappswagb.com> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 23, 2026. On March 25, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 27, 2026, 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 (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 April 7, 2026, 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 April 9, 2026. 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 April 10, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 30, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 8, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Peter Burgstaller as the sole panelist in this matter on May 22, 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 provider of one of the world’s most popular mobile messaging applications which allows users to exchange messages via smartphones; it also offers business users “The WhatsApp Business” app, which allows small businesses to interact with customers using tools to automate, sort, and quickly respond to messages. (Annexes 4 and 5 to the Complaint). The Complainant’s official website is available under the domain name <whatsapp.com> but it also owns numerous other domain names consisting of the mark WHATSAPP in various generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs”) and country code Top-Level Domains (“ccTLDs”) (Annex 6 to the Complaint). The Complainant has also a strong presence online by being active on various social-media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, X, YouTube and LinkedIn (Annex 7 to the Complaint). The Complainant further owns and/or has exclusive rights in numerous trademark registrations consisting of or comprising the mark WHATSAPP, inter alia: - United States Registration No. 3939463, registered on April 5, 2011; - European Union Trade Mark No. 009986514, registered on October 25, 2011; and - International Registration No. 1085539, registered on May 24, 2011, designating numerous jurisdictions around the world. Moreover, the Complainant holds and has rights in figurative trademark registrations for its logo under International Registration No. 1109890, registered on January 10, 2012, designating multiple jurisdictions around the world (Annex 8 to the Complaint). The disputed domain name was registered on September 24, 2024 (Annex 1 to the Complaint). At the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website which offered unauthorized modified versions of the Complainant’s application under the WHATSAPP trademark and the logo . The Respondent has published a disclaimer at the bottom of the website, in small font, that reads “We are not associated with the WhatsApp Messenger in any means. WhatsApp is a registered trademark of WhatsApp Inc. & www.whastapp.com” (Annex 10 to the Complaint). The disputed domain name and the Respondent’s services provided under the disputed domain name have been flagged by several cybersecurity vendors as malicious (Annex 1 to the Complaint). 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 that the WHATSAPP trademark is famous and well known worldwide; it notes that the disputed domain name entirely incorporates such trademark; it only adds the suffix “swagb” under the gTLD “.com” which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity; the WHATSAPP trademark of the Complainant is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. Further, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent has neither acquired nor applied for a trademark registration for “WhatsAppsWAGB” or any variation thereof and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. page 3 Moreover, there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent: The Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, nor are they affiliated with in any way; the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to make any use of its WHATSAPP trademarks, whether in a domain name or mobile app, in the use of its logos on the website, or otherwise. Indeed, the Respondent is a mobile application developer for software integrated with the Complainant’s WhatsApp platform and is therefore explicitly prohibited from using any of the Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademarks. However, the Respondent has configured the disputed domain name to resolve to a content that specifically targets the Complainant by offering unauthorized, modified versions of the Complainant’s WhatsApp application. Therefore, the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent also violates the Complainant’s WhatsApp Brand Assets and Guidelines and cannot claim rights under the Oki Data test. Moreover, the Respondent does not prominently disclose the lack of relationship with the Complainant despite repeatedly making prominent use of the WHATSAPP trademark; it only has published an easily-missed disclaimer at the bottom of the website. Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name and the Respondent’s services have been flagged by several cybersecurity vendors as malicious. The Complainant finally contends, that because of the fame of the Complainant and its trademarks, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its trademarks when registering the disputed domain name. Moreover, the disputed domain name resolves to a website which offers unauthorized modified versions of the Complainant’s WhatsApp application under its WHATSAPP trademark and logo, which clearly shows that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website and putative services marketed therein, this constitutes bad faith registration and use under the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is 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 Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant submitted evidence which incontestably and conclusively establishes rights in the mark WHATSAPP. In the present case the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the WHATSAPP mark in which the Complainant has rights since it only adds the letters “swagb” to the WHATSAPP mark as suffix. page 4 It has long been established under UDRP decisions that adding terms to a trademark, here, the addition of the prefix “swagb”, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy, if the relevant trademark remains recognizable within the disputed domain name (WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8). This is the case here; the distinctive WHATSAPP mark of the Complainant is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. Finally, it has also long been held that gTLDs (in this case “.com”) are generally disregarded when evaluating the confusing similarity between a disputed domain name and a trademark. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. Based on the available record, 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. While 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 often impossible 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. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the 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, since it has never assigned, granted, licensed, sold, transferred or in any way authorized the Respondent to register or use the WHATSAPP trademark in any manner. The Respondent did not reply and hence has not rebutted the Complainant’s contentions. Further, the Complainant focuses on the fact that its trademark is famous and well known around the world and registered in a variety of jurisdictions around the world. The Complainant provided suitable evidence of its reputation, adding that it is inconceivable that the Respondent would not have been aware of this when registering the disputed domain name. Moreover, given the fact that the disputed domain name resolved to a website that purported to offer unauthorized modified versions of the Complainant’s application by using the WHATSAPP trademark and the logo , which is very similar to the Complainant’s famous logo , affirms the Respondent’s intention of taking unfair advantage of the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant as to the origin or affiliation of the website at the disputed domain name. Finally, the evidence in the Complaint revealed a disclaimer at the website accessible through the disputed domain name that disclosed the lack of the Respondent’s relationship with the Complainant. However, this easily-missed disclaimer in the circumstances of this case cannot cure the Respondent’s bad faith, but rather suggests that the Respondent was aware users may be confused. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith As stated in many decisions rendered under the Policy (e.g. Robert Ellenbogen v. Mike Pearson, WIPO Case No. D2000-0001) both conditions, registration and use in bad faith, must be demonstrated; consequently, the Complainant must show that: page 5 - the disputed domain name is registered by the Respondent in bad faith, and - the disputed domain name is being used by the Respondent in bad faith. In the present case, the Complainant provided evidence which demonstrates that it has rights and is the owner of the famous and globally well-known registered trademark WHATSAPP, registered and used in many jurisdictions around the world long before the disputed domain name was registered. Further, the Complainant registered and is using various domain names containing the mark WHATSAPP e.g., <whatsapp.com> among others, for many years; the Complainant has also a strong Internet presence on various social media platforms. It is therefore inconceivable for this Panel that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant’s rights, which leads to the necessary inference of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.2. The Panel is convinced that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. The Complainant has put forward evidence that the disputed domain name was used by the Respondent to resolve to a website showing the Complainant’s mark WHATSAPP and purported to offer unauthorized modified WHATSAPP applications, while displaying the WHATSAPP mark and the logo which is confusing similar to the famous logo of the Complainant . This clearly disrupts the Complainant’s business and shows that the Respondent intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark, which constitutes bad faith use. The evidence and documents produced and put forward by the Complainant together with the fact that the Respondent failed to file a Response and therefore failed to present any evidence of any good faith registration and use with regard to the disputed domain name further prove that the disputed domain name was registered and is used by the Respondent in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established. 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 <whatsappswagb.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Peter Burgstaller/ Peter Burgstaller Sole Panelist Date: June 3, 2026

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