Meta888a.com + 12 more domains

The timeline behind meta888a.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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. Ling Howe Ung, DES DES, KOK WEN BIN, Dora ring Case No. D2026-2969 1. The Parties The Complainant is Meta Platforms, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Hogan Lovells Cadwalader (Paris) LLP, France. The Respondents are Ling Howe Ung, DES DES, KOK WEN BIN, and Dora ring, Malaysia. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <meta888a.com>, <meta888b.com>, <meta888c.com>, <meta888d.com>, <meta888e.com>, <meta888f.com>, <meta888g.com>, <meta888h.com>, <meta888i.com>, <meta888j.com>, <meta888k.com>, <meta888l.com>, and <meta888s.com> are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 6, 2026. On July 7, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On July 8, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent (Registration Private Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 10, 2026 with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrar, requesting the Complainant to either file separate complaints for the disputed domain names associated with different underlying registrants or alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in fact the same entity and/or that all domain names are under common control. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 15, 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”). page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 20, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 9, 2026. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on August 11, 2026. The Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist in this matter on August 18, 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. The Panel has not received any requests from the Complainant or the Respondents 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, 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 Respondents. The language of the proceeding is English, being the language of the Registration Agreements, 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 META, among which the following: - Andorran Trademark Registration No. 43626 for META, registered on January 3, 2022; - Monegasque Trademark Registration No. 2200039 for META, registered on February 8, 2022; and - European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 018686894 for META, applied for on April 13, 2022 and registered on July 14, 2023. The Complainant also owns figurative trademark registrations for its blue logo, consisting on an infinity sign that also forms the letter “M”, including: - European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 018650026, registered on December 20, 2022. The Complainant also operates on the Internet, being active on various social media platforms, among which: “facebook.com/Meta”, “instagram.com/Meta”, “twitter.com/Meta”, and “youtube.com/Meta”. The Complainant provided evidence in support of the above. The disputed domain names were registered on the following dates: <meta888a.com>, <meta888b.com> and <meta888c.com> on May 22, 2023; <meta888d.com>, <meta888e.com> and <meta888f.com> on December 2, 2023; <meta888g.com>, <meta888h.com> and <meta888i.com> on May 11, 2024; <meta888j.com> and <meta888k.com> and <meta888l.com> on October 17, 2024; <meta888s.com> on August 28, 2024. The disputed domain names resolve to websites with similar layouts, that offer online gambling and gaming services in Malaysia, featuring a banner incorporating the Complainant’s trademark META, a reproduction of the Complainant’s blue figurative trademark as a background, and the Complainant’s blue figurative trademark rotated by 90° and reproduced three times which forms the number “888”. That same reproduction is featured as a loading page logo as well as a favicon which is a modified logo of the Complainant’s trademark. 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 names. Notably, the Complainant states that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark META, as the disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety. Further to section 6.1 below, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain names are under common control and thus addresses the Respondents in the singular. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names since it has not been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain names or to use its trademark within the disputed domain names, it is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and it is not making either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. The disputed domain names resolve to websites with similar layouts, that offer online gambling and gaming services in Malaysia. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names in bad faith, since the Complainant’s trademark META is distinctive and internationally known. Therefore, the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain names, and the Complainant contends that the fraudulent use of the disputed domain names with the purpose to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to an affiliation between the Respondent and the Complainant, qualifies as bad faith registration and use. B. Respondents The Respondents have made no reply to the Complainant’s contentions and are 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 – if adequately supported by evidence – 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 6.1 Consolidation of Multiple Respondents The Complainant has requested consolidation of multiple respondents and stated that the disputed domain names belong to the same person or organization. No objection to this request was made by the Respondents. Pursuant to the WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.11.2, “[w]here a complaint is filed against multiple respondents, panels look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency would also underpin panel consideration of such a consolidation scenario”. The Panel may consider a range of factors to determine whether consolidation is appropriate, such as examining relevant registrant contact information, and any naming patterns in the disputed domain names, or other evidence of respondent affiliation that indicate common control of the disputed domain names. page 4 The Complainant’s consolidation request is based on the following factors: - all the disputed domain names resolve to similar online gambling and gaming websites. All of the websites have nearly identical layouts and prominently feature the Complainant’s META trademark, as well as variations of the Complainant’s figurative trademark; - the nature of the disputed domain names is very similar, including the Complainant’s META trademark followed by the number “888” and a single letter, under the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.com”; - all of the disputed domain names were registered via the same Registrar, GoDaddy.com, LLC; - all the disputed domain names were registered using the same proxy service; - all of the disputed domain names are registered to underlying registrants based in Malaysia. With the exception of the disputed domain name <meta888s.com>, all of the disputed domain names feature “Sibu” and “Sarawak” as part of the physical address, listing the same postal code “96000”. In addition, the underlying registrant email addresses all follow a similar pattern, notably “[text][number]@gmail.com”. The Panel finds that there is evidence that the disputed domain names are subject to common control, and that it would be procedurally efficient, fair, and equitable to all Parties to accept the Complainant’s consolidation request. The Panel further notes that the Respondents did not object to the consolidation request. The Panel therefore accepts the Complainant’s consolidation request. Hereinafter, the Panel will refer to the Respondents in the singular, i.e., “the Respondent”. 6.2 Substantive Issues Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed: (i) the disputed domain names are 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 names; and (iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are 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 names. 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 mark META is recognizable within the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. While the addition of other terms, here “888” and the letters “a”, “b”, “c”, “d”, “e”, “f”, “g”, “h”, “i”, “j”, “k”, “l” , “s”, 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 names and the Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. It is also well accepted that a 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. page 5 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, UDRP 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 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 names. 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 names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The disputed domain names resolve to websites with similar layouts, that offer online gambling and gaming services in Malaysia, creating a misleading impression of association with the Complainant and to trade off the Complainant’s goodwill and reputation for commercial gain. The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain names are not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. 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 names, the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark META is clearly established and the Panel finds that the Respondent more likely than not knew of the Complainant and deliberately registered the disputed domain names due to the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark, especially because the disputed domain names resolve to websites with similar layouts, that offer online gambling and gaming services in Malaysia, featuring a banner incorporating the Complainant’s trademark META, a reproduction of the Complainant’s blue figurative trademark as a background, and the Complainant’s blue figurative trademark rotated by 90° and reproduced three times which forms the number “888”. That same reproduction is featured as a loading page logo as well as a favicon which is a modified logo of the Complainant’s trademark. As far as the use in bad faith of the disputed domain names, the Panel notes that the Respondent is trying to attract Internet users to its websites by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the website’s source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement, an activity clearly detrimental to the Complainant’s business. page 6 The above suggests to the Panel that the Respondent intentionally registered and is using the disputed domain names in order to exploit the goodwill and reputation attached to the Complainant’s trademark and to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names constitutes bad faith under the Policy. 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 names <meta888a.com>, <meta888b.com>, <meta888c.com>, <meta888d.com>, <meta888e.com>, <meta888f.com>, <meta888g.com>, <meta888h.com>, <meta888i.com>, <meta888j.com>, <meta888k.com>, <meta888l.com> and <meta888s.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Edoardo Fano/ Edoardo Fano Sole Panelist Date: August 25, 2026

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