Fakeinstagram.com

The timeline behind fakeinstagram.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 Instagram, LLC v. Azad Can, HDiPTV Case No. D2026-3954 1. The Parties The Complainant is Instagram, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Hogan Lovells Cadwalader (Paris) LLP, France. The Respondent is Azad Can, HDiPTV, Germany. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <fakeinstagram.com> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 3, 2026. On September 3, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 4, 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, Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 7, 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 September 11, 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 September 14, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 4, 2026. The Respondent sent an email communication to the Center on September 16, 2026, and requested the Center to suspend the proceeding for settlement negotiations. On the same date, the Complainant requested the Center to continue the page 2 proceeding. The Center notified the Parties of the Commencement of Panel Appointment Process on October 6, 2026. The Center appointed Assen Alexiev as the sole panelist in this matter on October 8, 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 Instagram online photo and video sharing social networking platform and application, which was launched in 2010. In 2012, Meta Platforms, Inc. acquired the Complainant. The Instagram platform currently has more than 3 billion monthly active user accounts worldwide. Its official website is located at the domain name <instagram.com>, registered on June 4, 2004. The Complainant is the owner of a number of trademark registrations for INSTAGRAM (the “INSTAGRAM trademark”), including the following representative registrations: − the International trademark INSTAGRAM with registration No. 1129314, registered on March 15, 2012 for goods and services in International Classes 9 and 42; − the United States trademark INSTAGRAM with registration No. 4146057, registered on May 22, 2012 for goods in International Class 9; and − the European Union Trade Mark INSTAGRAM with registration No. 014493886, registered on December 24, 2015 for services in International Classes 35, 38, 41, and 45. The Complainant is also the owner of the European Union figurative Trade Mark with registration No. 016039828, registered on May 3, 2017 for goods and services in International Classes 9, 25, 35, 38, 41, 42, and 45 (the “Complainant’s figurative trademark”). The disputed domain name was registered on April 6, 2026. It is currently inactive. At the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered a tool to create Instagram accounts using artificial intelligence (“AI”) and displayed the following images: The Respondent’s website included the buttons “Generate a profile” and “I want to buy a real account”. The “FAQ” section of the website included the text “What is this tool? A free AI-powered tool that generates fake Instagram profile”. The website also displayed the notice “This tool generates fictitious profiles for creative purposes only. Not affiliated with Instagram. fakeinstagram.com © 2026”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its INSTAGRAM trademark, because it is a combination of the trademark with the dictionary word “fake”. According to the Complainant, the addition of this word does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the INSTAGRAM trademark, which remains clearly recognisable in the disputed domain name. page 3 The Complainant maintains that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, because it is not a licensee or an affiliate of the Complainant, is not commonly known under the disputed domain name, and has no relevant trademark rights. The Complainant points out that the disputed domain name resolves to a website that purports to offer an AI tool to create “mock Instagram profiles” and offers for sale fake Instagram accounts for USD 10 per account. The Complainant notes that the website at the disputed domain name features a gradient colour scheme that is very similar to that of the Complainant’s Instagram platform, and a modified version of the Complainant’s logo and figurative trademark as a graphic and favicon. The Complainant submits that the Respondent is making unauthorised use of the INSTAGRAM trademark to mislead Internet users, likely for commercial gain, in order to attract them to the website at the disputed domain name where it offers AI-created Instagram accounts and fake Instagram accounts for sale. The Complainant adds that the services offered via the website at the disputed domain name interfere with the intended operation of the Instagram service and violate the Instagram Terms of Use and the Meta Developer Policies. According to the Complainant, the Respondent does not fulfil the first and third requirements of the “Oki Data test” (WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 2.8). The Complainant submits that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to offer the Complainant’s services, namely Instagram social media services, but instead promotes services that facilitate the creation of non-authentic profiles and accounts, creating a risk of deception and misleading users regarding the authenticity of content and users on the Instagram platform, and damaging the functionality and intended operation of the Instagram platform. According to the Complainant, such activities are detrimental to the integrity of the platform and the user experience and do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services for the purposes of the Policy. Secondly, the website at the disputed domain name does not prominently disclose its absence of relationship with the Complainant, as the disclaimer-like wording “This tool generates fictitious profiles only for creative purposes. Not affiliated with Instagram” is displayed in small font in the footer of the website. According to the Complainant, notwithstanding the use of the word “fake” on the Respondent’s website, the repeated explicit references to “Instagram”, the use of a gradient colour scheme similar to that used by the Complainant on its website, and the use of a modified version of the Complainant’s figurative trademark as a graphic and favicon, all misleadingly suggest that the Respondent is affiliated with the Complainant. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. According to it, the INSTAGRAM trademark is inherently distinctive and well known globally in connection with its online photo sharing social network, having been continuously and extensively used since its launch in 2010. The Complainant notes that its INSTAGRAM trademark has rapidly acquired considerable reputation and goodwill worldwide, and by the time of the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name in April 2026, the Complainant had amassed over 3 billion monthly active users. The Complainant submits that the Respondent could not credibly argue that it did not have knowledge of the Complainant or of its INSTAGRAM trademark when registering the disputed domain name in April 2026. According to the Complainant, the Respondent’s intention to target the Complainant when registering the disputed domain name may be inferred from the content of the website at the disputed domain name, which makes explicit reference to Instagram and features a similar colour scheme to that used on the Complainant’s Instagram platform, as well as a modified version of the Complainant’s logo and figurative trademark as a graphic and favicon. The Complainant submits that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to advertise and offer for sale fake Instagram accounts, regardless of whether such accounts are AI-generated, constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use. According to the Complainant, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent is intentionally seeking to exploit the goodwill and reputation attached to the Complainant’s trademark for commercial gain. The Complainant concludes that the Respondent attracts Internet users to the website at the disputed domain name by creating a false impression of association with the Complainant, and promotes illegitimate services that damage the authenticity of users on the platform and the user page 4 experience. The Complainant adds the disclaimer like wording in small font in the footer of the website at the disputed domain name is insufficient to cure the Respondent’s bad faith use of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions. With its informal email to the Center of September 16, 2026, the Respondent stated its consent to the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant, and noted that the website at the disputed domain name had already been deactivated. 6. Discussion and Findings 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 INSTAGRAM trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the INSTAGRAM trademark is recognisable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the INSTAGRAM trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms (here, “fake”) 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 mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. 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 recognised 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 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 The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s INSTAGRAM trademark and has until recently resolved to a website that featured the same trademark and offered visitors a free AI-powered tool for the creation of fake Instagram accounts and offered Instagram accounts for sale. Even though the disputed domain name includes the dictionary word “fake” (so one may theoretically not be confused by the domain name itself as to the origin of the Respondent’s offerings) the Respondent’s activities are plainly based on the exploitation of the goodwill of the Complainant’s trademark and this is not bona fide nor fair use. The Respondent’s conduct moreover does not comply with the requirements of the Oki Data test (WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.8; Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903), because it does not offer the official product/service of the Complainant, but an ancillary third-party service that facilitates the creation and sale of fake profiles and accounts. As noted by the Complainant, this may deceive and mislead Internet users (and may damage the functionalities of the Instagram platform). The website at the disputed domain name contains a disclaimer but its presence does not render the Respondent’s activities bona fide under the Policy. When Internet users have a chance to read the disclaimer, they have already been attracted to the Respondent’s website based on unfairly trading off the Complainant’s rights and selling fake profiles which is axiomatic bad faith. In addition, taking into account the extensive use of the INSTAGRAM trademark and of a variation of the Complainant’s figurative trademark on the website at the disputed domain name, the Panel finds the Respondent’s disclaimer to be insufficient in preventing the confusion. Considering all the above, the Panel does not regard the Respondent’s conduct as a legitimate activity that may give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under the Policy. The Panel therefore 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. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the INSTAGRAM trademark, and the Respondent has used it for a website that featured the same trademark and offered visitors a free AI-powered tool for the creation of fake Instagram accounts and offered Instagram accounts for sale. This service appears to be facilitating the breach of the Complainant’s Terms of Use and the Meta Developer Policies, and may put the security of Internet users at risk, and this risk is not eliminated by the inclusion in the disputed domain name of the dictionary word “fake”. The Panel finds that the Respondent, being aware of the popularity of the Complainant’s Instagram service and of its INSTAGRAM trademark, has more likely than not registered and used the disputed domain name in an attempt to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain. As discussed in the section on rights and legitimate interests above, the presence of a disclaimer on the Respondent’s website does not change this conclusion. Taking the above into account, the Panel accepts that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant and targeting the INSTAGRAM trademark in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website, by unfairly trading off the reputation of the INSTAGRAM trademark. The Panel therefore finds that the third element of the Policy has been established. 7. Decision page 6 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 <fakeinstagram.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Assen Alexiev/ Assen Alexiev Sole Panelist Date: October 14, 2026

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