Whatsamarketingpro.com

The timeline behind whatsamarketingpro.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. Antonio Alvarez Case No. D2026-2443 1. The Parties The Complainant is WhatsApp LLC, United States of America, represented by Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France. The Respondent is Antonio Alvarez, Spain. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <whatsamarketingpro.com> is registered with Tecnocrática Centro de Datos, S.L. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 4, 2026. On June 5, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 5, 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) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 8, 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 9, 2026. On June 8, 2026, the Center informed the parties in Spanish and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Spanish. On June 9, 2026, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent submitted his Response in Spanish. 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 10, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 30, 2026. The Response was filed with the Center on June 28, 2026. The Center appointed Mihaela Maravela as the sole panelist in this matter on July 6, 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 According to information in the Complaint, the Complainant is a provider of one of the world’s most popular mobile messaging applications, which was founded in 2009 and acquired by Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly known as Facebook, Inc.) (Meta) in 2014. It allows users across the globe to exchange messages for free via smartphones, including iPhone and Android. Since its launch in 2009, WhatsApp has become one of the fastest growing and most popular mobile applications in the world, with over 3 billion monthly active users worldwide (as of January 2026). WhatsApp is one of the most downloaded applications for iOS phones worldwide according to applications information company Data.ai. The Complainant proved ownership of many WHATS and WHATSAPP trademarks, including the following: - the European Union Trade Mark No. 017923676, for WHATS, registered on March 8, 2019, in classes 9, 35, and 42; - the United States Registration No. 3,939,463, for WHATSAPP, registered on April 5, 2011, in class 42, - the European Union Trade Mark No. 009986514, for WHATSAPP, registered on October 25, 2011, in classes 9, 38, and 42, or - the International trademark registration No. 1085539, for WHATSAPP, registered on May 24, 2011, in classes 9 and 38. Further, the Complainant also holds figurative trademark registrations for its telephone logo, including the International Registration No. 1109890, registered on January 10, 2012, in classes 9 and 38, represented as follows: The disputed domain name was registered on December 20, 2021, and resolves to a website in Spanish titled “WhatsaMarketingPro” that purports to offer for sale software enabling WhatsApp users to “automate” WhatsApp application by providing additional features, including a bulk messaging feature. The website features the Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark and a logo that is very similar to its figurative trademark as depicted above, and a green and white colour scheme similar to that used by the Complainant. The website includes a statement at the bottom of the page to the effect that “whatsamarketingpro” is neither affiliated, nor is part of WhatsApp. 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 it owns numerous trademark registrations for WHATS and WHATSAPP in various jurisdictions and that the disputed domain name incorporates the WHATS trademark page 3 in its entirety, with the addition of the letter “a” and the terms “marketing” and “pro”. Also, the disputed domain name includes an abbreviation of the Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark whereby the letters “pp” are omitted. The Complainant submits that the presence of its WHATS trademark in its entirety and a dominant element of its WHATSAPP trademark in the disputed domain name is sufficient to establish confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks. As regards the second element of the Policy, the Complainant argues that the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way, nor has the Complainant authorized the Respondent to make any use of its WHATS and WHATSAPP trademarks, in a domain name or otherwise. According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is being used to offer for sale a software enabling WhatsApp users to “automate” WhatsApp application by providing additional features, including a bulk messaging feature. The Complainant argues that the Respondent is unable to be viewed as a bona fide service provider, as it is not providing sales or repairs for the legitimate use of the Complainant’s product. Rather, the Respondent is making unauthorized use of the Complainant’s trademarks to market its own ancillary services, and therefore, the Oki Data criteria would not apply. However, if one would apply the Oki Data criteria, the Respondent fails to meet the first and the third one, namely the Respondent’s website promotes third-party bulk WhatsApp messaging services, therefore the Respondent cannot be said to be using the website at the disputed domain name to offer the goods or services at issue, namely the Complainant’s WhatsApp application, and second, the Respondent’s website fails to accurately and prominently disclose its relationship with the Complainant, the disclaimer-like wording being placed at the bottom of the Respondent’s website. Rather, by referencing the Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademarks, displaying variations of its distinctive figurative trademark and logo, as well as featuring a green and white colour scheme similar to that used by the Complainant, the Respondent’s website suggests that the Respondent is affiliated with the Complainant, which is not the case. Further, the Respondent is making unauthorized use of the Complainant’s WHATS and WHATSAPP trademarks in the disputed domain name in an attempt to drive Internet users to the Respondent’s website, where they are prompted to purchase the Respondent’s services. The Complainant submits that the Respondent clearly derives monetary gain from its use of the disputed domain name and that the Respondent’s unauthorized use of the Complainant’s WHATS and WHATSAPP trademarks to promote its own independent services does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. Moreover, the Respondent’s services promoted via the disputed domain name may be used to send unsolicited electronic communications (spam), for phishing, or for other unauthorized or illegal activities, in violation of the WhatsApp terms of service. With respect to the third element of the Policy, the Complainant argues that its WHATSAPP trademark is inherently distinctive and well known throughout the world in connection with its messaging application, having been continuously and extensively used since the respective launching of its services, and acquiring considerable reputation and goodwill worldwide. Similarly, the Complainant’s WHATS trademark is well known throughout the world as an abbreviation of the Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark. Further, the Complainant contends that the nature of the Respondent’s website clearly demonstrates actual knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark, as it makes prominent reference to the Complainant, its WHATSAPP trademark and official application, uses modified versions of the Complainant’s logo and figurative trademark as well as a green and white colour scheme similar to that used by the Complainant. Given such use, Internet users are likely to be misled into believing that the Respondent’s website is somehow affiliated with or otherwise endorsed by the Complainant, when it is not. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Moreover, noting that the disputed domain name is being used to promote software enabling bulk messaging, there is an appreciable risk that such software may be used to send unsolicited electronic communications (spam), for phishing, or for other unauthorized activities. Such use places the security of WhatsApp users at risk, and facilitates breach of the WhatsApp terms of service. Although the Respondent’s website features disclaimer-like wording, it is not displayed prominently, accessible at the bottom of the Respondent’s website. The Complainant submits that even if a prominent and clearly-worded disclaimer had been featured on the Respondent’s website, it would not have been sufficient to cure the Respondent’s illegitimate use of the disputed domain name; page 4 B. Respondent The Respondent contends that the Complainant has not satisfied the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. As such, the Respondent contends that even if its project relates to training and marketing tools for using WhatsApp as a business communication channel, he denies having registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. With respect to the first element of the Policy, the Respondent acknowledges that the Complainant holds trademark rights with respect to the WHATSAPP trademark, but considers that the disputed domain name does not reproduce such trademark in its entirety, but rather it uses a compound term that should be understood not as an official name or webpage of the Complainant, but as a project involving professional marketing training and tools. Nevertheless, the Respondent agrees that the first requirement under the UDRP implies a low threshold and deems that his main defense refers to the second and the third elements. As regards the second element of the Policy, the Respondent contends that he has rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name because he used it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services for four years prior to the notice of dispute in June 2026. The Respondent further claims that the disputed domain name does not resolve to a blank page, rather it was used for a project offering goods and services, including online courses, software, automation tools, etc. Furthermore, the Respondent operates publicly under his name, and the clients identify “WhatsaMarketingPro” as a project of the Respondent. In addition, the Respondent contends that he invested resources in content development or software development or marketing regarding his project called “WhatsaMarketingPro”. Moreover, the Respondent has not identified himself as WhatsApp LLC, has not claimed to own the trademark WHATSAPP, and has not claimed that his project called “WhatsaMarketingPro” is an official tool of the Complainant. Rather the website at the disputed domain name included a disclaimer stating that it is not affiliated with or part of the Complainant. In addition, the Respondent does not sell counterfeit WHATSAPP products and does not impersonate the Complainant. Regarding the third element, the Respondent denies having registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, claiming that he did not register the disputed domain name in order to sell it to the Complainant or to prevent the Complainant from registering its trademark as a domain name. Moreover, the Respondent alleges he is not engaged in a pattern of conduct and he had no intention of disturbing the Complainant’s activity. Furthermore, the Respondent recognizes that his activity is related with the use of WhatsApp as a communication tool, but denies having intended to attract Internet users to his website by making them believe that it is an official website of the Complainant. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Language of the Proceeding The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Spanish. The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English for several reasons, including the fact that (i) the Registration Agreement is provided in English as well as in Spanish; (ii) the disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s WHATS trademark in its entirety as well as an abbreviation of the Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark, together with the English terms “marketing” and “pro”, the latter being an abbreviation for “professional”; (iii) the Complainant is a United States-based corporation whose main operating language is English, and requiring the Complainant to submit the Complaint in Spanish would result in significant additional expenses and unnecessary delay. The Respondent did not specifically address the Complainant’s request for English to be the language of the proceedings, and has filed his Response in Spanish. page 5 In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the Registration Agreement, as allowed by paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1“), section 4.5.1. Paragraph 10(b) and (c) of the Rules require the Panel to ensure that the Parties are treated with equality, that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case and that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition. Having considered all the circumstances above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of this proceeding is English, but that the Panel will accept all submissions and evidence as filed both in English and in Spanish language, without translation, as the Panel is familiar with both English and Spanish. The Panel takes into account inter alia the fact that it is clear from the contents of the Response that the Respondent has understood the Complaint and attempted to make arguments concerning matters raised in the Complaint. Also, the disputed domain name includes the English terms “marketing” and “pro”, an abbreviation for “professional” which further indicate that Respondent understands English. The Respondent has had a fair opportunity to present his case and used it to submit considerable evidence of his own. Therefore, the Panel considers that requiring the Complainant to translate the Complaint into Spanish would create an undue burden and delay. At the same time, the Panel notes that both Parties have been able to present their respective views of the matter in dispute. Therefore, the Panel does not consider that accepting the original version of any document on file causes prejudice to either Party. 6.2. Substantive matters To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (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. The applicable standard of proof is the “balance of probabilities” or “preponderance of the evidence”, and the Panel can draw certain inferences in light of the particular facts and circumstances of the case. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.2. 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 3.1, section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of the trademarks WHATS and WHATSAPP for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the WHATS trademark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. Further, the disputed domain name also includes an abbreviation of the Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark whereby the letters “pp” are omitted and as such the Panel finds the WHATSAPP trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms (here, “a”, “marketing”, and “pro”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. page 6 It is the settled view of panels applying the Policy that the generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs”) (here “.com”) may be disregarded under the first element test. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11. 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. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. 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, based on its submissions that its WHATS and WHATSAPP trademarks are widely used in commerce, that the Parties are not related and that the Respondent is neither a licensee of the Complainant, nor has ever been authorized by the Complainant to use the Complainant’s trademarks or register these as domain name. The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent cannot demonstrate any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, chiefly because: (i) the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to a webpage offering for sale a software for bulk-messaging to be used in connection with the Complainant’s WhatsApp messaging services and (ii) such software can be used to send unsolicited electronic communications (spam), for phishing, or for other illegitimate activities. In these circumstances, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to prove rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not claim to be making a noncommercial bona fide use of, or be commonly known by the disputed domain name, or own any trademark rights in the name WHATS or WHATSAPP. Instead, the Respondent is claiming that he is making a bona fide commercial use of the disputed domain name for a project offering goods and services, including online courses, software, automation tools called “WhatsaMarketingPro”. However, the Panel finds that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that displays the Complainant’s WHATSAPP trademark, a variant of the Complainant’s logo and the color green and white combination used is that of the Complainant, while purporting to offer for sale a software for automated bulk messaging for the Complainant product. Under these circumstances it is clear that the Respondent was targeting the Complainant’s trademark when choosing the disputed domain name and such use of the disputed domain name unfairly takes advantage of the Complainant’s trademark for the Respondent’s benefit and falsely suggests a connection or affiliation with the Complainant to purportedly offer unauthorized services or functionality for the WhatsApp application. The Panel is of the view that the Respondent is trying to capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s trademark, and does not find such use to constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. Therefore, such use does not confer on the Respondent rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Although the Respondent seems to imply that there is an educational component to his offerings, the evidence clearly shows that the disputed domain name is used in connection with a website that offers a software against a subscription. In other words, it is being used for commercial purposes and not educational ones. page 7 The Respondent places emphasis in his Responds on activities that he did not undertake, such as that he did not register the disputed domain name to resell it to the Complainant, to prevent the Complainant to reflect its trademark in domain names, to redirect traffic to competitors of the Complainant, to impersonate an official website, to engage in phishing, to publish misleading content, or to monetize a parked page. All these assertions seem to enumerate possible cybersquatting activities for the Respondent to conclude that if these are not found in the case at hand, there is no cybersquatting. However, the Panel deems that the Respondent did not credibly prove why he chose a confusingly similar domain name to the Complainant’s trademark for his project, other than to try to capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel further notes that the Respondent has referenced a disclaimer; however, the disclaimer on the website at the disputed domain name is displayed at the bottom of the page and given the primary website content which tends to falsely suggest a connection or affiliation with the Complainant, such non-prominent disclaimer does not change the Panels’ findings in this case. Moreover, the nature of the disputed domain name, incorporating an abbreviation of the Complainant’s widely-known trademark with additional terms related to use of its application online, appears intended to create confusion with the Complainant for the Respondent’s benefit. The Panel therefore finds that 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 of otherwise. 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. Generally speaking, a finding that a domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith requires an inference to be drawn that the respondent in question has registered and is using the disputed domain name to take advantage of its significance as a trademark owned by the complainant. The Panel considers that this is the case here. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark which is well-known and carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. It has been used to offer for sale a software enabling WhatsApp users to “automate” WhatsApp application by providing additional features, including a bulk messaging feature, therefore a messaging service, which is the core business of the Complainant. Furthermore, the website of the Respondent shows the logo of the Complainant, which clearly indicates that the Respondent is trying to pass itself off as being connected with the Complainant. Furthermore, the Respondent concedes he had knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark at the date of registering the disputed domain name, but claims there was no bad faith on his part. Under the circumstances of the case, and given the above use, the Panel finds that Internet users would likely have been confused as to the source of the products or services offered on such website. Therefore, the Panel considers that paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy has direct bearing to the present case: “(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the said website location or of a product or service on that website location.” page 8 The Respondent’s websites include a disclaimer for the lack of relationship with the Complainant, but it is only included at the bottom of the website. As discussed in section 3.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.1, in cases where the respondent appears to otherwise have a right or legitimate interest in a disputed domain name, a clear and sufficiently prominent disclaimer would lend support to circumstances suggesting its good faith. On the other hand, where the overall circumstances of a case point to the respondent’s bad faith, the mere existence of a disclaimer cannot cure such bad faith. In such cases, panels may consider the respondent’s use of a disclaimer as an admission by the respondent that users may be confused. The circumstances of this case, as evident from the case file, do not support a finding that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and in any event the disclaimer is not sufficiently prominent. Rather, as discussed above, the overall circumstances of the case point to the Respondent’s bad faith, so the inclusion of the disclaimer may indeed be regarded as an admission by the Respondent that visitors to its websites may be confused about their origin and affiliation. 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 <whatsamarketingpro.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Mihaela Maravela/ Mihaela Maravela Sole Panelist Date: July 20, 2026

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