Waplusapps.com

The timeline behind waplusapps.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. Shoaib Ahmed Case No. D2026-1249 1. The Parties The Complainant is WhatsApp, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Perkins Coie LLP, United States. The Respondent is Shoaib Ahmed, Germany. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <waplusapps.com> is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 23, 2026. On the following day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 25, 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, whatsapp plus) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 27, 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 March 31, 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 1, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 21, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 22, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Matthew Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on April 29, 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 operates the WhatsApp messaging and voice-over-IP service and mobile application. The application has over two billion monthly active users worldwide. The Complainant holds multiple trademark registrations, including the following: − United States trademark registration number 3939463 for WHATSAPP, registered on April 5, 2011, with a claim of first use in commerce on February 24, 2009, specifying services in class 42; − International trademark registration number 1109890 for a green and white figurative mark in the shape of a speech bubble (the “WhatsApp logo”), registered on January 10, 2012, specifying goods and services in classes 9 and 38; and − United Kingdom trademark registration number UK00004152446 for WA, registered on April 18, 2025, specifying goods and services in classes 9 and 42. The above trademark registrations are current. The Complainant has also registered and uses the domain name <whatsapp.com> in connection with a website where it offers its WhatsApp messaging application for download. The Complainant has also registered and uses many other domain names that combine the WHATSAPP mark with other generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) extensions and country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) extensions. The Respondent is identified in the Registrar’s WhoIs database as an individual with a contact postal address in Germany and a contact telephone number in Pakistan. According to information presented by the Complainant, several prior UDRP panels have found that the Respondent registered and used other domain names that were confusingly similar to the Complainant’s WHATSAPP mark in bad faith. See WhatsApp LLC v. Shoaib Ahmed, WIPO Case No. D2024-3008, WhatsApp LLC v. Shoaib Ahmed, WIPO Case No. D2025-4231, WhatsApp LLC v. Shoaib Ahmed, WIPO Case No. D2025-3888, WhatsApp LLC v. Shoaib Ahmed, WIPO Case No. D2025-1800, and WhatsApp LLC v. Shoaib Ahmed, WIPO Case No. D2025-0460, regarding the domain names <whatsappplus.app>, <whatsappplus.top>, <whatsappplus.org>, <gbwhatsappapk.org>, <whatsappgbdownload.com>, and <gbwhatsappapk.pro>. The disputed domain name was registered on October 7, 2025. According to the evidence provided by the Complainant, it resolves to a website mostly in English and partly in Spanish that offers a “WhatsApp Plus” application for download. This application is purported to be a modified version of the WhatsApp messaging application that offers customization options and faster download speeds for images, videos and documents. According to the website at the disputed domain name, this latest version of WhatsApp Plus offers protection against bans from “the official WhatsApp”. The website prominently displays logos similar to the Complainant’s WhatsApp logo but in different colors. The website also displays the Complainant’s WhatsApp logo alongside instructions on how to link devices. The office of the website operator is shown at an address in Madrid, Spain with a contact telephone number in Peru. A review published on the website [p.26/44 of Annex 10 to the Complaint] indicates that “ads appear” when using WhatsApp Plus, unless users upgrade to the “ad-free version”. On November 11, 2025, the Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent by email, with a follow-up email on November 18, 2025. 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 name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its WHATSAPP and WA marks. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. There is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Although the Respondent has gone to some lengths to appear to have a business called WhatsApp Plus located in Madrid, Spain, a search of the Spanish companies register shows no company named “whatsapp plus”. Rather, it appears that the Respondent is impersonating or implying some affiliation with the Complainant. The Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, nor affiliated with the Complainant in any way. The Respondent’s website is likely to confuse users into believing that the disputed domain name and its purported “WhatsApp Plus” services are operated or approved by, or affiliated with, the Complainant. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It is inconceivable for the Respondent to argue that he was not aware of the Complainant’s trademarks when he registered the disputed domain name in 2025. Moreover, the disputed domain name and the Respondent’s website content are so obviously connected with the Complainant and its WHATSAPP trademarks and services that such use by the Respondent, who has no connection to the Complainant, suggests opportunistic bad faith. The Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to his 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, in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Further, the Respondent’s choice to register and use other domain names confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks indicates a pattern of bad faith registration. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that a complainant must prove each of the following elements with respect to the disputed domain name: (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 in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The burden of proof of each element is borne by the Complainant. 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. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. page 4 The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a WHATSAPP trademark and a WA trademark for the purposes of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the WA mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name as its initial component. Despite the addition of the terms “plus” and “apps”, the WA mark remains clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. The only additional component is a gTLD extension (“.com”) which, as a standard requirement of domain name registration may be disregarded in the assessment of confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the WA mark for the purposes of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 1.7, 1.8, and 1.11.1. Given that finding, it is unnecessary to compare the disputed domain name with the WHATSAPP trademark. Therefore, 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 that 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. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. In the present case, the disputed domain name combines the WA mark with the words “plus” and “apps”, implying that it offers additional applications affiliated with the Complainant’s WA mark, which is an abbreviation of its WHATSAPP trademark for its ubiquitous messaging application. However, the Complainant submits that the Respondent is not its licensee nor affiliated with it in any way. The website associated with the disputed domain name indicates that it offers a modified version of the Complainant’s messaging application. Although careful review of the website content shows that this version is not affiliated with the Complainant, by the time that an Internet user realizes this, the disputed domain name has already achieved its diversionary purpose. This is not a use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Further, the website content indicates that “ads appear” when using WhatsApp Plus, unless users upgrade to the “ad-free version”. This indicates that the Respondent, or the operator of the WhatsApp Plus messaging application (if different), derives revenue from use of the modified application. Accordingly, this is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Registrar has verified that the Respondent’s name is “Shoaib Ahmed”, which does not resemble the disputed domain name. Nothing on the record indicates that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. 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. page 5 Based on the record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the second element of the Policy. 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. The fourth circumstance is as follows: “(iv) by using the [disputed] domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] web site or location.” The disputed domain name was registered in 2025, after the registration of the Complainant’s WA trademarks. The associated website purportedly offers a modified version of the Complainant’s WhatsApp messaging application for download, displays the Complainant’s WhatsApp logo, and explains how to use “the official WhatsApp”. In view of these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent knew of the Complainant at the time when he registered the disputed domain name. As regards use, the disputed domain name falsely implies that it will resolve to a website offering additional applications affiliated with the Complainant’s WA mark, when in fact the associated website purportedly offers a modified version of the WhatsApp messaging application that is not affiliated with the Complainant. This use is intentional and for commercial gain, as the website indicates that the Respondent, or the operator of the WhatsApp Plus messaging application (if different), derives revenue from advertising during use of the application, and from customers’ upgrades to the ad-free version. In view of these circumstances, the Panel finds that, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s WA mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of his site or of a product on that site, within the terms of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel also notes that the Respondent has registered and used multiple domain names confusingly similar to the Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark in bad faith, and that those cases form part of a pattern of conduct with the present case. That is a further indication of bad faith. Therefore, 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 <waplusapps.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Matthew Kennedy/ Matthew Kennedy Sole Panelist Date: May 5, 2026

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