Tutfb.com

The timeline behind tutfb.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. Nguyen Van Sang Case No. D2026-1204 1. The Parties The Complainant is Meta Platforms, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France. The Respondent is Nguyen Van Sang, Viet Nam. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <tutfb.com> is registered with Mat Bao Corporation (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 19, 2026. On March 20, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 23, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 23, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar. The Center verified that 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 March 25, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 14, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 15, 2026. The Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist in this matter on April 21, 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. page 2 The Panel has not received any requests from the Complainant or the Respondent regarding further submissions, waivers, or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any further information from the Parties. Having reviewed the communication records in the case file provided by the Center, the Panel finds that the Center has discharged its responsibility under the Rules, paragraph 2(a), “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to [the] Respondent”. Therefore, the Panel shall issue its Decision based upon the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules, and the Supplemental Rules and without the benefit of a response from the Respondent. The language of the proceeding is English, being the language of the Registration Agreement, as per paragraph 11(a) of the Rules. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly Facebook, Inc.), a United States company operating, inter alia, the social networks Facebook, Instagram, Meta Quest (formerly Oculus), and WhatsApp, and owning several trademark registrations for FACEBOOK and FB, among which the following: - International Trademark Registration No. 1075807 for FACEBOOK, registered on July 16, 2010; - Vietnamese Trademark Registration No. 128158 for FACEBOOK, registered on June 26, 2009; - European Union Trade Mark No. 005585518 for FACEBOOK, registered on May 25, 2011; - European Union Trade Mark No. 018146501 for FB, registered on November 7, 2020; - United Kingdom Trademark No. UK00003441474 for FB, registered on March 20, 2020. The Complainant operates on the Internet at the main website “www.facebook.com”, as well as with many other generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs”) and country code Top-Level Domains (“ccTLDs”) consisting of or including the trademark FACEBOOK. The Complainant provided evidence in support of the above. According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered on April 3, 2025, and it resolves to a website in Vietnamese, prominently displaying the Complainant’s FACEBOOK and FB trademarks and its distinctive logo and figurative “thumb up” trademark, the latter in a slightly modified version, purportedly offering for sale various types of bundled accounts, including clone accounts for Facebook, TikTok and YouTube, through different pricing packages. On February 17, 2026, the Complainant's lawyers sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent, without receiving any reply. 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 states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark FB. Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, since it has not been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name or to use the trademark FB within the disputed domain name, it is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and it is not making either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate page 3 noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to its website that purports to offer for sale various types of bundled accounts, including Facebook clone accounts. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, since the Complainant’s trademark FACEBOOK is distinctive and internationally known, and the Complainant's trademark FB is commonly used to refer to Facebook and has also acquired substantial goodwill and global recognition. Therefore, the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s trademark FB at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and the Complainant contends that the use of the disputed domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website, creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website, qualifies as bad faith registration and use. B. Respondent The Respondent has made no reply to the Complainant’s contentions and is in default. In reference to paragraphs 5(f) and 14 of the Rules, no exceptional circumstances explaining the default have been put forward or are apparent from the record. A respondent is not obliged to participate in a proceeding under the Policy, but if it fails to do so, reasonable facts asserted by a complainant may be taken as true, and appropriate inferences, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, may be drawn. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”) section 4.3. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of 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. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the entirety of the Complainant’s trademark FB is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark FB for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. While the addition of other terms, here “tut” (meaning “drop” in Vietnamese), may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. page 4 It is also well-accepted that a generic Top-Level-Domain (“gTLD”), in this case “.com”, is typically ignored when assessing the similarity between a trademark and a domain name. 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 that 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 names. 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 present 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. Should the services offered on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves be genuine, the question that would arise is whether the Respondent would therefore have any rights or legitimate interests in using the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark in circumstances that are likely to give rise to confusion. According to the current state of UDRP decisions in relation to the issue of resellers as summarized in the WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.8.1: “[...] resellers, distributors, or service providers using a domain name containing the complainant’s trademark to undertake sales or repairs related to the complainant’s goods or services may be making a bona fide offering of goods and services and thus have a legitimate interest in such domain name. Outlined in the ‘Oki Data test’, the following cumulative requirements will be applied in the specific conditions of a UDRP case: (i) the respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue; (ii) the respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods or services; (iii) the site must accurately and prominently disclose the registrant’s relationship with the trademark holder; and (iv) the respondent must not try to ‘corner the market’ in domain names that reflect the trademark.” This summary is based on the UDRP decision in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903. page 5 From an inspection of the Respondent’s website at the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that various types of bundled accounts, including clone accounts for Facebook, together with other third-party social media applications, such as TikTok and YouTube, are purportedly offered for sale, and therefore the Respondent cannot be said to be using its website to offer the goods or services at issue, namely the Complainant’s Facebook social media services. Moreover, the Panel notes that the Respondent's website at the disputed domain name does not accurately and prominently disclose its lack of relationship with the Complainant as there is no visible disclaimer. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. Finally, the Panel finds that the composition of the disputed domain name (incorporating the Complainant’s trademark FB in its entirety with the addition of the term “tut”, meaning “drop” in Vietnamese), together with the display of the Complainant's FACEBOOK and FB trademarks and its distinctive figurative trademarks (whether through direct reproduction or modified variation) on the website at the disputed domain name, carries a risk of implied affiliation as it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1. Based on the available record, 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. 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 3.1, section 3.2.1. In the present case, regarding the registration in bad faith of the disputed domain name, the reputation of the Complainant’s trademarks FACEBOOK and FB in the social networks field is clearly established, and the Panel finds that the Respondent must have known of the Complainant, and deliberately registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, especially because on the website at the disputed domain name the Respondent is reproducing the Complainant’s trademarks, logo, and a very similar version of the figurative “thumb up” trademark, purportedly offering for sale various types of bundled accounts, including clone accounts for Facebook, TikTok and YouTube, through different pricing packages. The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name is also being used in bad faith since on the website at the disputed domain name the Respondent is purportedly offering for sale various types of bundled accounts, including clone accounts for Facebook, TikTok and YouTube, through different pricing packages, while displaying the Complainant’s trademarks, logo, and a very similar version of the figurative “thumb up” trademark. Therefore, the Panel finds that under the circumstances of this case the Respondent is trying to attract Internet users to its website by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the disputed domain name’s source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement; an activity clearly detrimental to the Complainant’s business. The above suggests to the Panel that the Respondent more likely than not intentionally registered and is using the disputed domain name in order both to disrupt the Complainant’s business, and to attract Internet users to its website in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established. page 6 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 <tutfb.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Edoardo Fano/ Edoardo Fano Sole Panelist Date: April 23, 2026

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