In or around August 2018, the Complainant started to promote its product via a website at “www.panchain.co” and a “Panchain”-branded Facebook page, which had garnered 701 likes and 717 follows by December 13, 2018. The Complainant has spent some USD 9,500 on Facebook advertising.
...Identical or Confusingly Similar
While the Complainant has only been trading for a relatively short period and to a modest degree, nonetheless it has engaged in significant investment-seeking activity, it has launched a website and Facebook page under its “Panchain” brand and it has spent some USD 9,500 on Facebook advertising, resulting in a respectable amount of social media engagement.
...
2019-01-25 - Case Details
In this respect it refers to "multiple Instagram profiles and a Facebook page", which it is claimed looked as if these were "official Vogue accounts".
5.3 The Complainant does not provide copies of these profiles or page, but contends that these accounts were disabled as a consequence of the Complainant filing trade mark infringement complaints with Instagram and Facebook. A copy of the trade mark report form that the Complainant's lawyers submitted to Facebook is provided in this respect.
5.4 The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has not been authorised to use the Complainant's VOGUE marks and "has no legitimate use or right to use the VOGUE brand". ...
2015-07-20 - Case Details
In this sense, the Panel considers that there are sufficient evidences that the Respondent is fluent in English as he declares in his personal “FaceBook” page and uses English to define himself as the manager of “one of the oldest outlet in Romania”.
...- the Respondent promotes the sale of MONCLER goods on his “FaceBook” page, along with other goods bearing well-known third-party trademarks. These goods are likely to be counterfeit, as it appears from their quality “www.facebook.com/Factory-Outlet-800002526684959”. ...
2017-06-02 - Case Details
The Panel notes that in the Complaint, Complainant has provided evidence of a Facebook page operating under “SpinGroup Casino” that features the same stylized logo as the Domain Name, nearly identical websites at “www.africanstarcasino.bet” and “ggslots.bet” that either refer to “SpinGroup Gaming (Pty) Ltd.” or feature the same stylized logo as that found on the Domain Name and Facebook page, and these affiliated sites offer competing services to Complainant in the same industry.
...In this instance, the Panel notes that Complainant’s annexed captures of Respondent’s Facebook page were sent with Complainant’s June 22, 2021 cease-and-desist letter, whereas the Complaint was filed with the Center four months later in October, suggesting that Respondent has changed its name on Facebook in response to the filing of this Complaint, further undercutting any notion that Respondent may be commonly known by the Domain Name. ...
2021-12-30 - Case Details
The Parties
The Complainants are Meta Platforms, Inc., United States of America (“United States”) (formerly known as
Facebook, Inc.), and Instagram, LLC, United States (a subsidiary of Meta Platforms, Inc.), represented by
Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France. ...Factual Background
The Complainant Meta Platforms, Inc. is a United States social technology company, which operates, among
other companies, Facebook, Instagram, Meta Quest (formerly Oculus), Novi, Portal, and WhatsApp.
Formerly known as Facebook, Inc., Meta Platforms, Inc. publicized its name change worldwide. ...
2022-08-25 - Case Details
“MPI”), is a U.S. social technology company which operates, inter alia, Facebook,
Instagram, Meta Quest (formerly Oculus), Portal, and WhatsApp. MPI, formerly known as Facebook Inc.,
announced its change of name to Meta Platforms, Inc. on October 28, 2021, and this was publicized
worldwide including in China.
...The Complainants state that they have made substantial investments to develop a strong presence online by
being active on various social media platforms, including Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. They have over
73 million “Likes” on its official Facebook page and 13.9 million followers on Twitter.
...
2023-02-22 - Case Details
Factual Background
The Complainant is Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly Facebook, Inc.) (“Meta”), a United States corporation,
together with its subsidiary Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC (formerly Facebook Technologies, LLC)
(“Meta Platforms Technologies”), collectively referred to as the “Complainant”.
...See Meta Platforms, Inc. and Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC v caocan, WIPO Case No. D2022-3014
(). See also Facebook, Inc., Instagram, LLC, WhatsApp Inc., Facebook Technologies,
LLC v. Jurgen Neeme, hello@thedomain.io and Jay Neeme, WIPO Case No. ...
2023-05-30 - Case Details
The Complaint attaches evidence that another customer complained on Facebook of not having a reply from the Respondent, and also notes a lack of evidence on LinkedIn of students actually receiving degrees from the Respondent.
...The Complainant also notes that the Respondent’s Facebook page continues to display the Respondent’s logo with “NEW YORK UNIVERSITY” above the much smaller words “of Business and Technologies”. ...
2020-08-06 - Case Details
Заявитель также обеспечил свое присутствие в ведущих социальных сетях (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Youtube) и использует знак PAYONEER для продвижения своих услуг под этим наименованием.
...Если доменное имя полностью включает торговую марку, то такое доменное имя обычно считается идентичным или сходным до степени смешения для целей Политики .UA (см., например, Facebook Inc. v. Private Registration / Denis Khakimov, Дело ВОИС No. DUA2019-0002). Предыдущие Административные комиссии пришли к выводу, что доменные имена, идентичные товарному знаку заявителя, несут в себе высокий риск презюмировавния наличия связи с торговой маркой. ...
2021-04-12 - Case Details
The Panel conducted a simple Google search of Complainant’s business, and Complainant’s Facebook
page was among the top search results1. Complainant’s Facebook page has 448 followers, and the page
features fairly regular posts wherein Complainant features his activities and advertises his services. These
frequent Facebook posts date back to at least 2019.
The Domain Name was registered on May 16, 2007. Complainant asserts that he was the original registrant
of the Domain Name, and used it for more than a decade to promote his business. ...
2023-10-27 - Case Details
The Complainant has been successful in respect of a request to Facebook to have the Respondent’s
Facebook page removed.
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.
...As evidence of this, the Complainant points to (a) actual user confusion in
respect of the Respondent’s previous Facebook and LinkedIn pages; (b) the fact that the Respondent did
not respond to the Complainant’s demand letters; and (c) Facebook’s action in taking down the
Respondent’s Facebook page.
...
2024-03-15 - Case Details
Once the survey is completed the user is requested to share the news and like it on Facebook with the following message: “Stap 1 – Deel deze pagina door op de knop “DELEN” te klikken en typ “Bedankt voor mijn kortingsbon” in het opmerkingen veld! ...Instead, the Complainant puts forward, the Domain Name is merely used as an attempt to impersonate the Complainant for phishing purposes since, when clicking on the Facebook buttons on the website, the user is redirected to a fake Facebook login page, apparently to obtain the user’s Facebook login details. ...
2019-11-11 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Facebook, Inc. v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Giap Nguyen Van and Giao Tran Ngoc
Case No. D2018-2762
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Facebook, Inc. of Menlo Park, California, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France.
...
2019-01-23 - Case Details
The Complainants state that they have made substantial investments to develop a strong presence online by
being active on various social-media platforms, including Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn. For instance,
MPI’s official page on Facebook has over 79 million “likes” and 13.9 million followers on Twitter.
...The Respondent admitted to his awareness ofthe FACEBOOK trade mark
and it is therefore not at all plausible that the registration of the disputed domain names comprising the
Complainants’ well-publicized trade marks was unknown to the Respondent.
...
2023-08-08 - Case Details
The website displays the heading “The Holistic Guide to Wellness® - Official Book” and
the following photo of the book, which appears to be identical to the official publication of the Complainant:
page 3
The Respondent’s website also displays the disclaimer “This site is NOT a part of the Facebook website or
Facebook Inc. Additionally, this site is NOT endorsed by Facebook in any way”, a mailing address similar to
the address of the Respondent disclosed by the Registrar, and the copyright notice “© 2025, The Holistic
Guide to Wellness All Rights Reserved.”
5. ...The Respondent’s website also displays the disclaimer “This site is NOT a part of the Facebook website or Facebook Inc. Additionally, this site is NOT endorsed by Facebook in any way”, a mailing address similar to the address of the Respondent disclos...
5. ...
2025-12-30 - Case Details
D2021-3201
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Facebook Technologies, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France.
...Factual Background
The Complainant is a subsidiary of Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”). As a technology company, the Complainant is the intellectual property rights holder for various technologies owned by Facebook. ...
2021-12-08 - Case Details
Factual Background
The Complainant is a United States social technology company, formerly known as Facebook, Inc. It
changed its name to Meta Platforms, Inc. on October 28, 2021. The Complainant operates Facebook,
Instagram, Meta Quest (formerly Oculus), Portal, and WhatsApp, and its focus is to bring the metaverse to
life and to help people connect, find communities and grow businesses. ...It
notes that it first announced its social VR experience in September 2019 under the name “Facebook
Horizon”, and launched it as an invitation-only beta phase on April 3, 2020. The Complainant announced
that this social VR experience would be renamed to “Horizon Worlds” on October 7, 2021 – 15 days before
the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. ...
2022-12-02 - Case Details
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Facebook Inc. and Instagram, LLC v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Mihael Megatron
Case No. D2019-0797
1. ...The First Complainant owns many trademarks reflecting the “FACEBOOK” term including the following trademark (“the First Trademark”):
− European Union (“EU”) Trademark No. 004535381, for FACEBOOK, registered on June 22, 2011;
− International Trademark No. 1075094, for FACEBOOK, registered on July 16, 2010.
...
2019-07-09 - Case Details
The Complainant has made substantial investments to develop a strong online presence through various
social media platforms, including Facebook, X (formerly known as Twitter), and LinkedIn. The Complainant’s
Facebook page has over 61 million “likes”, and it has over 33 million followers on X.
...Additionally, it purported to offer a tool that enabled Internet users to download
content from “FB”, a commonly-abbreviation of Facebook, and a tool that enabled Internet users to download
content f rom the third-party social media platform TikTok.
...
2024-10-14 - Case Details
D2020-3127 (addition of words “buy”, “followers”, “cheap”, “like”, “bot”, and “solutions” to INSTAGRAM mark did not prevent confusing similarity); Facebook, Inc. v. Daniel Khrayzat,
WIPO Case No. D2019-2813 (facebookglobalpay.com and facebookglobalpayment.com found confusingly similar to FACEBOOK mark).
...Prior UDRP panels have found no rights or legitimate interests in the presence of such evidence. See Facebook, Inc. v. Daniel Khrayzat,
WIPO Case No. D2019-2813 (no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent obtained disputed domain names FACEBOOK and ‘crypto’, ‘pay’, and/or ‘payment after news reports anticipated the complainant’s foray into cryptocurrency)
In view of the above, the Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2021-06-30 - Case Details