Dispute Decision: Instagram LLC Wins UDRP Complaint Against Glassagram.org Domain Name

In a recent UDRP (Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy) decision, Instagram LLC's dispute over the Glassagram.org domain name has attracted widespread attention. This case highlights the importance of the defendant in the domain name registration process and the complex relationship between domain names and trademark rights.

1、Case Background

The complainant, Instagram LLC, is an American company that provides online photo and video sharing social networking applications. It was founded in 2010 and acquired by Meta Platforms, Inc. in 2012. It owns multiple trademark registrations for INSTAGRAM and GRAM. It operates the main website "www.instagram.com" and many other domain names, including domain names containing the trademark INSTAGRAM.

The respondent is Uzhanmedya of Orhan Uzdu of Turkey.

The disputed domain name glassagram.org was registered on May 15, 2023 and resolves to a website called "Glassagram", which displays a logo similar to the complainant's trademark and claims to provide an anonymous Instagram viewer that can be viewed even without the consent of a private Instagram account.

2、 Disputes between the Parties

Complainant

1. Claims that all requirements for the transfer of the disputed domain name in the Policy are met. The disputed domain name is similar to the complainant's trademarks INSTAGRAM and GRAM, completely including GRAM and adding the word "glassa".

2. Points out that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, is not authorized to register or use its trademark, is not widely known by the disputed domain name, does not provide goods or services in good faith, and does not use it legally non-commercially or reasonably. The disputed domain name resolution website displays the complainant's INSTAGRAM trademark and its graphic trademark variants. The respondent provides unauthorized tools that violate the complainant's terms of use and Meta developer policy.

3. Believes that the respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. Because the complainant's trademark is distinctive and well-known, the respondent targeted the complainant's trademark when registering it, deliberately attracted Internet users to visit its website for commercial benefits, and caused confusion with the complainant's trademark in terms of source, sponsorship, affiliation or recognition.

The respondent

did not make a formal response to the complainant's arguments, but sent emails to the Center on November 18 and December 10, 2024, stating that "no software will be used in the relevant domain, and the website will be transformed into a topic tag help website" and "the policy issues in the domain have been resolved."

3、Final ruling

Analysis of policy elements

1. Identical or confusingly similar: The panel determined that the first element of the policy was established based on the existing records.

2. Rights or legitimate interests: The disputed domain name website displays variants of the complainant's graphic trademark and is used for illegal purposes. The panel therefore believes that the second element of the policy is established.

3. Malicious registration and use: The complainant's trademark has a significant reputation in the relevant field. The disputed domain name website registered by the respondent displays the complainant's trademark and variants and claims to provide anonymous Instagram viewers. The panel determined that the respondent must have known the existence of the complainant and deliberately registered in bad faith; at the same time, the respondent used the disputed domain name to try to create confusion and attract users to visit its website, which may disrupt the complainant's business. The panel believes that the third element of the policy is established.

Conclusion of the Decision

For the reasons stated above, the Panel orders the transfer of the disputed domain name glassagram.org to the Complainant.