Transcriberforwhatsapp.com

The timeline behind transcriberforwhatsapp.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. Fred Pedersen Case No. D2026-2285 1. The Parties The Complainant is WhatsApp LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France. The Respondent is Fred Pedersen, Ireland. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <transcriberforwhatsapp.com> is registered with CloudFlare, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 27, 2026. On May 28, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 28, 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 (DATA REDACTED) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 29, 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 amended Complaint on June 2, 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”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 5, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 25, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 26, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Torsten Bettinger as the sole panelist in this matter on July 2, 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 a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in California, United States. The Complainant operates one of the world’s leading mobile messaging applications under the trademark WHATSAPP. The Complainant’s services are offered primarily through its website at “www.whatsapp.com” and through mobile applications for iOS and Android devices. The Complainant’s messaging platform has more than three billion monthly active users worldwide. The Complainant owns trademark rights in the mark WHATSAPP. These include, inter alia, the following trademark registrations: - European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 009986514 for WHATSAPP, registered on October 25, 2011; - United States Trademark Registration No. 3939463 for WHATSAPP, registered on April 5, 2011; and - International Trademark Registration No. 1085539 for WHATSAPP, registered on May 24, 2011. The Complainant also owns trademark registrations for its distinctive telephone logo, including International Trademark Registration No. 1109890, registered on January 10, 2012. The disputed domain name <transcriberforwhatsapp.com> was registered on December 29, 2024. The disputed domain name resolves to a website operating under the name “Transcriber for WhatsApp”, offering an online voice transcription service enabling users to convert WhatsApp voice messages into text. The service is offered free of charge subject to daily usage limits or through a paid monthly subscription. The evidence submitted by the Complainant shows that the website makes extensive use of the Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark, features a green colour scheme similar to that associated with the Complainant, and displays a modified version of the Complainant’s distinctive telephone logo, including as a favicon. The website does not contain any disclaimer indicating that it is unaffiliated with the Complainant. The Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter and an abuse notice to the Respondent on February 23, 2026. The Respondent did not reply. Instead, the Respondent subsequently removed the contact email address from the website and changed the registrar of the disputed domain name. 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. With regard to the requirement of identity or confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant contends that: page 3 - the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark in its entirety; - the addition of the descriptive terms “transcriber” and “for” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity; and - the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) “.com” should be disregarded for the purposes of the confusing similarity analysis. With regard to the Respondent having no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant submits that: - the Respondent has no relationship with the Complainant; - the Complainant has never authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the WHATSAPP trademark or to register a domain name incorporating that mark; - the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; - the disputed domain name is used in connection with a website offering a third-party voice transcription service for WhatsApp; - the website prominently refers to the Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark, uses a similar green colour scheme, and displays a modified version of the Complainant’s telephone logo; - the website does not accurately and prominently disclose the Respondent’s lack of relationship with the Complainant; and - the Respondent’s use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. - Finally, with regard to the disputed domain name having been registered and being used in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the Complainant argues that: - the Complainant’s trademark rights substantially predate the registration of the disputed domain name; - the WHATSAPP trademark is distinctive and well known worldwide; - the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its WHATSAPP trademark when registering the disputed domain name; - the disputed domain name was deliberately chosen because it combines the Complainant’s trademark with terms directly referring to the service offered on the associated website; - the Respondent uses the disputed domain name for a commercial website offering a voice transcription service specifically directed at WhatsApp users; - the Respondent intentionally attempts to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website and services; - the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name fall within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy; and - the Respondent failed to respond to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter and subsequently removed the contact email address from the website and changed registrar. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements: (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 page 4 (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 has shown rights in respect of the WHATSAPP trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The disputed domain name consists of the terms “transcriber” and “for”, followed by the Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark and the TLD “.com”. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark in its entirety. The trademark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. The addition of the terms “transcriber” and “for” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The “.com” TLD is viewed as a standard registration requirement and, as such, is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity analysis. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that 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. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its WHATSAPP trademark. There is no evidence on the record that the Respondent is affiliated with the Complainant or has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark in its entirety together with the terms “transcriber” and “for”. In the context of the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name page 5 for a website offering a transcription service specifically for WhatsApp voice messages, the disputed domain name carries a clear risk of implied affiliation. The evidence shows that the disputed domain name resolves to a website operating under the name “Transcriber for WhatsApp” and offering a service described as enabling users to convert WhatsApp voice messages into text. The website makes repeated references to WHATSAPP, adopts a green colour scheme similar to that associated with the Complainant, and displays a modified version of the Complainant’s telephone logo, including as a favicon. The website does not contain any disclaimer indicating that it is unaffiliated with the Complainant. Such use of a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark to operate a website that gives the impression of being connected with, endorsed by, or authorized by the Complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy. Nor does the Panel find any evidence of legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Respondent’s website is commercial in nature, offering paid monthly subscriptions for unlimited access, and appears intended to capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark and messaging platform. The Respondent has not submitted any response and has not come forward with any evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) 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. In the present case, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. The Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark rights predate the registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has also shown that its WhatsApp messaging platform was widely known before the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark in its entirety together with the terms “transcriber” and “for”. The Respondent’s website expressly refers to WhatsApp and offers a service for transcribing WhatsApp voice messages. In these circumstances, the Panel finds it implausible that the Respondent selected the disputed domain name independently or without knowledge of the Complainant and its WHATSAPP trademark. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for a website targeting the Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark and services further supports the conclusion that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the Complainant and its trademark in mind. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. The evidence further shows that the disputed domain name has been used to resolve to a website operating under the name “Transcriber for WhatsApp” and offering a service for converting WhatsApp voice messages into text. page 6 The Respondent’s website gives the impression that it is connected with, affiliated with, or authorized by the Complainant. It uses the Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark, adopts a similar green colour scheme, displays a modified version of the Complainant’s distinctive telephone logo, and offers services specifically directed at users of the Complainant’s WhatsApp platform. In the Panel’s view, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to a website offering WhatsApp-related transcription services by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement constitutes bad faith use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel further considers that the absence of any disclaimer, the use of a modified version of the Complainant’s logo, and the commercial nature of the Respondent’s website reinforce the finding that the Respondent intentionally sought to exploit the goodwill associated with the Complainant’s mark and platform. The Respondent’s purported failure to reply to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter and its subsequent removal of the contact email address from the website and change of registrar further support a finding of bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 <transcriberforwhatsapp.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Torsten Bettinger/ Torsten Bettinger Sole Panelist Date: July 16, 2026

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