WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION WhatsApp Inc. v. Chandru Printers, Praveen Chandru Case No. D2018-1543 1. The Parties

The Complainant is WhatsApp Inc. of Menlo Park, California, United States of America ("United States"), represented by Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP, France.

The Respondent is Chandru Printers, Praveen Chandru of Chennai, India, represented by Rabbit IP LLC, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with N, Inc. (N LLC) (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on July 10, 2018. On July 10, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 19, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center received informal email communications from the Respondent on July 14, 2018 and July 17, 2018. The Parties exchanged email communications between July 24, 2018 and July 31, 2018.

The Center verified that the 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 July 20, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 9, 2018. On August 8, 2018, the Respondent requested an extension of the Response due date. On the same day, the Center granted the Respondent an additional four calendar days to respond, and confirmed the new Response due date was August 13, 2018. The Response was filed with the Center on August 13, 2018.

The Center appointed Warwick A. Rothnie as the sole panelist in this matter on August 21, 2018. 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 is the provider of the very widely used messaging service of the same name. The Complainant and its business were founded in 2009. It was acquired by Facebook in 2014.

According to the Complaint, by the end of 2009, the "Whatsapp" service had over one million active monthly users. It had 200 active users per month by April 2013, 500 million users by April 2014, 900 million users in September 2015 and one billion users in February 2016. In India, there were 20 million monthly active users in August 2013, 60 million monthly active users in August 2014 and 160 million active monthly users in November 2016. Also according to the Complaint, the Complainant's website at is the 23rd most visited website in India.

Amongst other things, the Complainant owns:

(a) Indian Registered Trademark No 2149059 for WHATSAPP in respect of goods and services in International Classes 9 and 38. This trademark has been registered from May 24, 2011,

(b) European Union Trademark No. 009986514 for WHATSAPP in respect of goods and services in International Classes 9, 38 and 42. This trademark was registered on May 25, 2011,

(c) United States Registered Trademark No. 3939463 for WHATSAPP in respect of services in International Class 42. This trademark was filed on April 1, 2009 and registered in the Principal Register on April 5, 2011, and

(d) International Registration No. 1085539 for WHATSAPP in respect of goods and services in International Classes 9 and 38 based on the United States registration and designating some 28 countries.

The disputed domain name was first registered on September 18, 2012. According to the Response, the Respondent became the registrant in 2016.

Prior to November 2016, the disputed domain name does not appear to have resolved to an active website. From November 2016, the disputed domain name has resolved to an active website promoting "Whatsapp Update – The Best Whatsapp Clone". Shortly before the Complaint was filed the software and service being promoted from the website was "Zoechat", another instant messenging service. The website and screen shots featured a similar green get up and layout to that used by the Complainant for its service's website. 5. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest the Respondent of the disputed domain name, the Complainant must demonstrate each of the following:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, and

(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.

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules directs the Panel to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The first element that the Complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name is identical with, or confusingly similar to, the Complainant's trademark rights.

There are two parts to this inquiry: the Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark and, if so, the disputed domain name must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to the trademark.

The Complainant has proven ownership of the registered trademarks r