Case 1:20-cv-00639-RDA-IDD Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 1 of 18 PageID# 1
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`Alexandria Division
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL CASE NO.
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR
`CYBERSQUATTING
`(IN REM RELIEF)
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware corporation;
`INSTAGRAM, LLC, a Delaware
`limited
`liability company; and
`WHATSAPP INC., a Delaware corporation;
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`facebook-verify-inc.com;
`httpswwwfacebook.com;
`myfacebooklogin.net;
`rackearfacebook.com;
`curtindoimagensnofacebook.com;
`mtouchfacebook.com;
`instagramfrenzy.com;
`instagramhjack.com;
`espiarwhatsappwep.com;
`parapreciosescribenosporwhatsapp.com;
`videocall-whatsapp.com;
`whatsappcolor.com;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiffs Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”), Instagram, LLC (“Instagram”), and WhatsApp
`
`Inc. (“WhatsApp”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`
`This is an action in rem against the infringing domain names <facebook-verify-inc.com>,
`
`<httpswwwfacebook.com>, <myfacebooklogin.net>, <rackearfacebook.com>,
`
`<curtindoimagensnofacebook.com>, <mtouchfacebook.com>, <instagramfrenzy.com>,
`
`<instagramhjack.com>, <espiarwhatsappwep.com>, <parapreciosescribenosporwhatsapp.com>,
`
`<videocall-whatsapp.com>, and <whatsappcolor.com> (collectively hereafter “Defendant
`
`Domain Names”) based on the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”), 15
`
`
`
`1 COMPLAINT FOR CYBERSQUATTING
`(IN REM RELIEF)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00639-RDA-IDD Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 2 of 18 PageID# 2
`
`
`
`U.S.C. § 1125(d). The Defendant Domain Names have been registered, trafficked in and/or used
`
`with a bad faith intent to profit from Plaintiffs’ trademarks in violation of the ACPA. Designed
`
`to impersonate Plaintiffs, the Defendant Domain Names are used to divert unsuspecting
`
`consumers to commercial websites unaffiliated with Plaintiffs, and on information and belief, to
`
`websites that distribute viruses and malware, while potentially exposing the consumer to
`
`phishing scams, identity theft, or other types of fraud. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and the
`
`transfer of the Defendant Domain Names to them.
`
`JURISDICTION, VENUE AND JOINDER
`
`1.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
`
`1331 and 1338(a).
`
`2.
`
`This Court has in rem jurisdiction over the Defendant Domain Names pursuant to
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2)(A). Plaintiffs are not able to obtain in personam jurisdiction over the
`
`registrant who would have been a defendant or, through due diligence, were not able to find a
`
`person who would have been a defendant because the identity(ies) of the registrant’s authorized
`
`licensee(s) of the Defendant Domain Names are concealed by a proxy service. 15 U.S.C. §
`
`1125(d)(2)(A)(ii). Additionally, under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2)(C), the Defendant Domain Names
`
`are deemed to have their situs in this judicial district because VeriSign Inc. – the <.com> and
`
`<.net> registry – is located in Reston, Virginia.
`
`3.
`
`Upon information and belief, Compsys Domain Solutions Private Limited
`
`(“Compsys”), a business entity located in India, provides a domain registration proxy service.
`
`Compsys registers a domain name in its own name and, as the registrant and owner of the domain
`
`name, licenses the domain name to a person for trafficking and use.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiffs, through due diligence, were unable to identify the authorized licensee(s)
`
`of the Defendant Domain Names registered through Compsys. In fact, Compsys, as well as the
`
`
`
`2 COMPLAINT FOR CYBERSQUATTING
`(IN REM RELIEF)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00639-RDA-IDD Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 3 of 18 PageID# 3
`
`
`
`registrars Tirupati Domains and Hosting Pvt. Ltd. (“Tirupati”) and PDR Ltd. d/b/a Public Domain
`
`Registry.com (“PDR”), have refused to disclose the identities of the authorized licensee(s) of the
`
`Defendant Domain Names in response to Plaintiffs’ requests.
`
`5.
`
`Upon information and belief, the authorized licensee(s) of the Defendant Domain
`
`Names is/are the same person or entity and/or are under the control of the same person or entity,
`
`as evidenced by the similarity of the Defendant Domain Names, the use of the same registrars,
`
`similar pay-per-click content displayed on the directory sites, and the registrations occurred within
`
`close time periods. Moreover, all Defendant Domain Names share the same IP address.
`
`6.
`
`Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(2)(A)(ii)(II)(aa), Plaintiffs have given notice of
`
`the violations of their rights and will give notice of their intent to proceed in rem to the postal and
`
`e-mail addresses set forth in the WHOIS registration records for the Defendant Domain Names.
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and 15 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1125(d)(2) because the property – the Defendant Domain Names – is located in the Eastern
`
`District of Virginia and the entity that maintains the registrations for the Defendant Domain Names
`
`– VeriSign Inc. – is located in the Eastern District of Virginia.
`
`8.
`
`Joinder of the Defendant Domain Names is proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)
`
`in that the in rem cybersquatting claim set forth herein arises out of the same series of transactions
`
`and the same questions of law that are common to all of the Defendant Domain Names.
`
`PARTIES
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff Facebook is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
`
`located at 1601 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California 94025.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff Instagram is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place
`
`of business located at 1601 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California 94025.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff WhatsApp is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
`
`
`
`3 COMPLAINT FOR CYBERSQUATTING
`(IN REM RELIEF)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00639-RDA-IDD Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 4 of 18 PageID# 4
`
`
`
`at 1601 Willow Road, Menlo Park, California 94025.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`Facebook is the ultimate parent company of Instagram and WhatsApp.
`
`<facebook-verify-inc.com> is an internet domain name registered on November 21,
`
`2017, using the registrar Tirupati. A true and accurate copy of the WHOIS registration record for
`
`this domain name is attached as Exhibit 1.
`
`14.
`
`<httpswwwfacebook.com> is an internet domain name registered on November 16,
`
`2017, using the registrar Tirupati. A true and accurate copy of the WHOIS registration record for
`
`this domain name is attached as Exhibit 2.
`
`15.
`
`<myfacebooklogin.net> is an internet domain name registered on October 27, 2017,
`
`using the registrar PDR. A true and accurate copy of the WHOIS registration record for this domain
`
`name is attached as Exhibit 3.
`
`16.
`
`<rackearfacebook.com> is an internet domain name registered on February 1, 2018,
`
`using the registrar Tirupati. A true and accurate copy of the WHOIS registration record for this
`
`domain name is attached as Exhibit 4.
`
`17.
`
`<curtindoimagensnofacebook.com> is an internet domain name registered on
`
`December 1, 2017, using the registrar Tirupati. A true and accurate copy of the WHOIS registration
`
`record for this domain name is attached as Exhibit 5.
`
`18.
`
`<mtouchfacebook.com> is an internet domain name registered on November 21,
`
`2017, using the registrar Tirupati. A true and accurate copy of the WHOIS registration record for
`
`this domain name registration is attached as Exhibit 6.
`
`19.
`
`<instagramfrenzy.com> is an internet domain name registered on February 26,
`
`2018, using the registrar Tirupati. A true and accurate copy of the WHOIS registration record for
`
`this domain name is attached as Exhibit 7.
`
`20.
`
`<instagramhjack.com> is an internet domain name registered on November 9,
`
`
`
`4 COMPLAINT FOR CYBERSQUATTING
`(IN REM RELIEF)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00639-RDA-IDD Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 5 of 18 PageID# 5
`
`
`
`2017, using the registrar Tirupati. A true and accurate copy of the WHOIS registration record for
`
`this domain name is attached as Exhibit 8.
`
`21.
`
`<espiarwhatsappwep.com> is an internet domain name registered on February 26,
`
`2018, using the registrar Tirupati. A true and accurate copy of the WHOIS registration record for
`
`this domain name is attached as Exhibit 9.
`
`22.
`
`<parapreciosescribenosporwhatsapp.com> is an internet domain name registered
`
`on January 23, 2018, using the registrar Tirupati. A true and accurate copy of the WHOIS
`
`registration record for this domain name is attached as Exhibit 10.
`
`23.
`
`<videocall-whatsapp.com> is an internet domain name registered on February 1,
`
`2018, using the registrar Tirupati. A true and accurate copy of the WHOIS registration record for
`
`this domain name is attached as Exhibit 11.
`
`24.
`
`<whatsappcolor.com> is an internet domain name registered on November 16,
`
`2017, using the registrar Tirupati. A true and accurate copy of the WHOIS registration record for
`
`this domain name is attached as Exhibit 12.
`
`25.
`
`All of the Defendant Domain Names are configured to use the same IP address,
`
`namely, 199.191.50.142. This IP address is used by a server in the British Virgin Islands.
`
`26.
`
`All of the Defendant Domain Names have been registered with the use of a domain
`
`registration proxy service, in this case Compsys, to block access to the authorized licensee(s)’s
`
`identity and contact information.
`
`27.
`
`Upon information and belief, rather than acting merely as a domain registration
`
`proxy service, which typically discloses the identity of the authorized licensee(s) once an
`
`administrative domain name dispute is instituted, Compsys does not disclose the identity of its
`
`authorized licensee(s) as part of the dispute. As a result, the identities of the authorized licensee(s)
`
`are never publicly revealed. For example, a recent World Intellectual Property Organization
`
`
`
`5 COMPLAINT FOR CYBERSQUATTING
`(IN REM RELIEF)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00639-RDA-IDD Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 6 of 18 PageID# 6
`
`
`
`(“WIPO”) panel decision in a Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”)
`
`dispute, Unilever N.V. v. Compsys Domain, Compsys Domain Solutions Private Limited, Case No.
`
`D2018-2292 (WIPO Nov. 20, 2018), identifies at least seven (7) other WIPO UDRP disputes in
`
`which Compsys was a named Respondent. Accordingly, the Panel found that Compsys had
`
`engaged in a bad faith pattern of domain name registration and ordered the domain name
`
`registration transferred to the trademark owner.
`
`28.
`
`Upon information and belief, Compsys is currently the listed registrant of dozens
`
`of other domain names that are identical or confusingly similar to the famous trademarks of others.1
`
`29.
`
`Despite registering dozens of domain names over the last few years, Plaintiffs are
`
`informed and believe that Compsys’ corporate status has been inactive since at least 2012.
`
`30.
`
`Upon information and belief, Tirupati has breached its Registration Accreditation
`
`Agreement (“RAA”) with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”)
`
`on at least three (3) occasions for failing to comply with mandatory registration data submission
`
`requirements and procedures for publishing abuse reports, and failing to comply with the UDRP.2
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`Facebook’s Services and Marks
`
`31.
`
`Facebook was founded in 2004, the same year it launched the social media
`
`platform, Facebook, currently available on the website located at <facebook.com> and the
`
`Facebook mobile application.
`
`32.
`
`Amongst other products and services, Facebook offers a social networking website
`
`and mobile application that enables its users to create their own personal profiles and connect with
`
`
`1 https://domainbigdata.com/nj/suIbDmiBBc08--phT9SV4Zx0gxmU8cAJXx_47iiC8eiafIlG9fIVBMFooIqmD22t
`(last accessed May 28, 2020).
`2 https://www.icann.org/compliance/notices (last accessed May 28, 2020).
`
`
`
`6 COMPLAINT FOR CYBERSQUATTING
`(IN REM RELIEF)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00639-RDA-IDD Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 7 of 18 PageID# 7
`
`
`
`each other on their personal computers and mobile devices.
`
`33.
`
`Facebook owns the exclusive rights to numerous trademarks and service marks to
`
`provide its online services, including the distinctive FACEBOOK wordmark and stylized mark,
`
`having used the marks in connection with its services since at least as early as 2004.
`
`34.
`
`In addition to its extensive common law rights, Facebook owns numerous United
`
`States registrations for its FACEBOOK marks including, but not limited to:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`United States Registration Number 3,122,052; and
`
`United States Registration Number 3,881,770.
`
`
`
`True and accurate copies of these registration certificates are attached as Exhibits 13 and 14.
`
`Facebook’s common law and registered trademarks are collectively referred to as the “Facebook
`
`Marks.”
`
`35. Moreover, pursuant to Sections 15 and 33(b) of the Trademark Act (15 U.S.C. §§
`
`1065 and 1115 (b)), Facebook’s federal trademark registrations for FACEBOOK (Reg. No.
`
`3,881,770) and FACEBOOK (Reg. No. 3,122,052) have become incontestable through five years
`
`of consecutive use from the date of registration. In addition, Facebook filed Section 15 affidavits
`
`in the United States Patent and Trademark Office confirming that the registrations are
`
`incontestable.
`
`36.
`
`Facebook’s use of the Facebook Marks in interstate commerce has been extensive,
`
`continuous, and substantially exclusive. Facebook has made, and continues to make, a substantial
`
`investment of time, effort and expense in the promotion of Facebook and the Facebook Marks.
`
`37.
`
`As a result of Facebook’s efforts and use, the Facebook Marks are famous (and
`
`have been famous since at least as early as 2011) as they are recognized within the United States
`
`and around the world as signifying high quality, authentic goods and services provided by
`
`Facebook.
`
`
`
`7 COMPLAINT FOR CYBERSQUATTING
`(IN REM RELIEF)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00639-RDA-IDD Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 8 of 18 PageID# 8
`
`
`
`users.
`
`38.
`
`Facebook is available in over one hundred languages and has over two billion active
`
`39.
`
`Facebook is consistently ranked as one of the top 10 most visited websites and
`
`consistently ranks as one of the most downloaded applications for mobile devices.
`
`40.
`
`According to App Annie, between 2010 and 2019, Facebook was the number one
`
`downloaded app worldwide.
`
`41.
`
`According to information company Alexa, <facebook.com> is the fourth most
`
`visited website in the United States.
`
`Instagram’s Services and Marks
`
`42.
`
`Instagram offers a photo and video sharing and editing service, mobile application,
`
`and social network. Instagram users can choose to share their photos and videos with their
`
`followers online.
`
`43.
`
`Instagram owns the exclusive rights to the distinctive INSTAGRAM wordmark and
`
`stylized mark, having used the marks in connection with its goods and services since as early as
`
`2010.
`
`44.
`
`In addition to extensive common law rights, Instagram owns numerous United
`
`States registrations for the INSTAGRAM marks, including, but not limited to:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`United States Registration Number 4,795,634;
`
`United States Registration Number 4,146,057;
`
`United States Registration Number 4,756,754;
`
`United States Registration Number 5,566,030;
`
`United States Registration Number 4,856,047;
`
`United States Registration Number 4,822,600;
`
`United States Registration Number 4,827,509;
`
`
`
`8 COMPLAINT FOR CYBERSQUATTING
`(IN REM RELIEF)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00639-RDA-IDD Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 9 of 18 PageID# 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`h.
`
`United States Registration Number 4,863,594;
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`United States Registration Number 4,863,595;
`
`
`
`United States Registration Number 5,019,151; and
`
`k.
`
`United States Registration Number 5,869,731.
`
`True and accurate copies of these registration certificates are attached as Exhibits 15 through 25.
`
`Instagram’s common law and registered trademarks are collectively referred to as the “Instagram
`
`Marks.”
`
`45. Moreover, pursuant to Sections 15 and 33(b) of the Trademark Act (15 U.S.C. §§
`
`1065 and 1115 (b)), Instagram’s federal trademark registration for INSTAGRAM (Reg. No.
`
`4,146,057) has become incontestable through five years of consecutive use from the date of
`
`registration. In addition, Instagram filed a Section 15 affidavit in the United States Patent and
`
`Trademark Office confirming that the registration is incontestable.
`
`46.
`
`Instagram’s use of the Instagram Marks in interstate commerce has been extensive,
`
`continuous, and substantially exclusive. Instagram has made, and continues to make, a substantial
`
`investment of time, effort, and expense in the promotion of Instagram and the Instagram Marks.
`
`47.
`
`As a result of Instagram’s efforts and use, the Instagram Marks are famous (and
`
`have been famous since at least as early as 2014) as they are recognized within the United States
`
`and around the world as signifying high quality, authentic goods and services provided by
`
`Instagram.
`
`48. More than 1 billion people use Instagram making it one of the world’s most popular
`
`mobile applications.
`
`49.
`
`Instagram is available in over 30 languages, and it is ranked as one of the most
`
`visited websites in the world.
`
`50.
`
`According to App Annie, between 2010 and 2019, Instagram was the fourth most
`
`
`
`9 COMPLAINT FOR CYBERSQUATTING
`(IN REM RELIEF)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00639-RDA-IDD Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 10 of 18 PageID# 10
`
`
`
`downloaded app worldwide.
`
`51.
`
`According to information company Alexa, <instagram.com> is the 18th most visited
`
`website in the United States.
`
`WhatsApp’s Services and Marks
`
`52. WhatsApp offers simple, secure, reliable messaging and calling provided for
`
`mobile devices globally and through desktop computers. WhatsApp users may access WhatsApp’s
`
`services via app stores or its website located at <whatsapp.com>.
`
`53. WhatsApp owns the exclusive rights to several trademark and service marks
`
`including the distinctive WHATSAPP mark, having used the mark in connection with its goods
`
`and services since at least as early as 2009.
`
`54.
`
`In addition to its extensive common law rights, WhatsApp owns numerous United
`
`States registrations for the WHATSAPP mark including, but not limited to:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`United States Registration Number 3,939,463;
`
`United States Registration Number 4,083,272;
`
`United States Registration Number 5,492,738; and
`
`United States Registration Number 5,520,108.
`
`True and accurate copies of these registration certificates are attached as Exhibits 26 through 29.
`
`WhatsApp’s common law and registered trademarks are collectively referred to as the “WhatsApp
`
`Marks.”
`
`55. Moreover, pursuant to Sections 15 and 33(b) of the Trademark Act (15 U.S.C. §§
`
`1065 and 1115 (b)), WhatsApp’s federal trademark registrations for WHATSAPP (Reg. No.
`
`4,083,272) and WHATSAPP (Reg. No. 3,939,463) have become incontestable through five years
`
`of consecutive use from the date of registration. In addition, WhatsApp filed Section 15 affidavits
`
`in the United States Patent and Trademark Office confirming that the registered marks are
`
`
`
`10 COMPLAINT FOR CYBERSQUATTING
`(IN REM RELIEF)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00639-RDA-IDD Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 11 of 18 PageID# 11
`
`
`
`incontestable.
`
`56. WhatsApp’s use of the WhatsApp Marks in interstate commerce has been
`
`extensive, continuous, and substantially exclusive. WhatsApp has made, and continues to make, a
`
`substantial investment of time, effort and expense in the promotion of WhatsApp and the
`
`WhatsApp Marks.
`
`57.
`
`Almost 2 billion people in over 180 countries use WhatsApp making it one of the
`
`world’s most popular messaging applications.
`
`58.
`
`According to App Annie, between 2010 and 2019, the WhatsApp Messenger was
`
`ranked third in downloaded apps worldwide.
`
`59.
`
`Collectively, the Facebook Marks, Instagram Marks, and WhatsApp Marks
`
`constitute “FB Intellectual Property” for purposes of this Complaint.
`
`Unlawful Registration and Use of Defendant Domain Names
`
`60.
`
`Plaintiffs own the exclusive right to use and control their FB Intellectual Property
`
`in connection with goods and services identical or related to those for which the FB Intellectual
`
`Property is used including, but not limited to, providing and hosting online web facilities.
`
`61.
`
`Each of the Defendant Domain Names is identical or confusingly similar to
`
`Plaintiffs’ FB Intellectual Property. Each of the Defendant Domain Names combines Plaintiffs’
`
`FB Intellectual Property with generic, descriptive or other non-distinctive words that are
`
`insufficient to distinguish the Defendant Domain Names from Plaintiffs’ marks.
`
`62.
`
`The <facebook-verify-inc.com> domain name wholly incorporates the Facebook
`
`Marks combined with the words “verify inc,” which, on its face, misleads consumers into the
`
`mistaken belief the domain name registration is associated with verification of a Facebook account,
`
`and is otherwise insufficient to materially distinguish it from the Facebook Marks.
`
`63.
`
`The <httpswwwfacebook.com> domain name wholly incorporates the Facebook
`
`
`
`11 COMPLAINT FOR CYBERSQUATTING
`(IN REM RELIEF)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00639-RDA-IDD Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 12 of 18 PageID# 12
`
`
`
`Marks combined with the letters “httpswww,” which is “typosquatting” or an attempt to capitalize
`
`upon typographical errors of a user, primarily users who inadvertently miss typing the periods
`
`between https and www and Facebook, and is otherwise insufficient to materially distinguish it
`
`from the Facebook Marks.
`
`64.
`
`The <myfacebooklogin.net> domain name wholly incorporates the Facebook
`
`Marks combined with the words “my login,” which, on its face, misleads consumers into the
`
`mistaken belief the domain name registration is associated with access to a Facebook account, and
`
`is otherwise insufficient to materially distinguish it from the Facebook Marks.
`
`65.
`
`The <rackearfacebook.com> domain name wholly incorporates the Facebook
`
`Marks combined with the word “rackear,” which is an alternative spelling of “hackear” – the word
`
`for “hacker” in Spanish – and is otherwise insufficient to materially distinguish it from the
`
`Facebook Marks.
`
`66.
`
`The <curtindoimagensnofacebook.com> domain name wholly incorporates the
`
`Facebook Marks combined with the words “curtindo imagens no Facebook,” a Portuguese phrase
`
`meaning “enjoying images on Facebook,” an action particularly associated with Plaintiff’s
`
`services, and is otherwise insufficient to materially distinguish it from the Facebook Marks.
`
`67.
`
`The <mtouchfacebook.com> domain name wholly incorporates the Facebook
`
`Marks combined with the term “mtouch,” which is “typosquatting” or an attempt to capitalize
`
`upon typographical errors of a user, primarily users who inadvertently miss typing the period
`
`between mtouch and Facebook when attempting to access the “mtouch” version of Facebook
`
`(which is available in both the United States and internationally), and is otherwise insufficient to
`
`materially distinguish it from the Facebook Marks.
`
`68.
`
`The <instagramfrenzy.com> domain name wholly incorporates the Instagram
`
`Marks combined with the word “frenzy,” and is otherwise insufficient to materially distinguish it
`
`
`
`12 COMPLAINT FOR CYBERSQUATTING
`(IN REM RELIEF)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00639-RDA-IDD Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 13 of 18 PageID# 13
`
`
`
`from the Instagram Marks.
`
`69.
`
`The <instagramhjack.com> domain name wholly incorporates the Instagram Marks
`
`combined with the word “jack” and letter “h,” which is “typosquatting” of the word “hack” or
`
`“hijack,” designed to catch a typographical error of either typing “hack” because “j” is next to the
`
`“h” on the keyboard or missing the “i” in “hijack,” and is otherwise insufficient to materially
`
`distinguish it from the Instagram Marks.
`
`70.
`
`The <espiarwhatsappwep.com> domain name wholly incorporates the WhatsApp
`
`Marks combined with the word “espiar” which is Spanish for the word “spy,” and the word “wep,”
`
`which appears to be capitalizing on a typographical error in attempting to type “web,” and is
`
`otherwise insufficient to materially distinguish it from the WhatsApp Marks.
`
`71.
`
`The <parapreciosescribenosporwhatsapp.com> domain name wholly incorporates
`
`the WhatsApp Marks combined with the words “para precios escribenos por,” which, translated
`
`from Spanish means “for prices write us,” is an attempt to mislead consumers into the mistaken
`
`belief the domain name registration is associated with WhatsApp pricing, and is otherwise
`
`insufficient to materially distinguish it from the WhatsApp Marks.
`
`72.
`
`The <videocall-whatsapp.com> domain name wholly incorporates the WhatsApp
`
`Marks combined with the word “videocall,” which is a service that is offered through the
`
`WhatsApp application and is otherwise insufficient to materially distinguish it from the WhatsApp
`
`Marks.
`
`73.
`
`The <whatsappcolor.com> domain name wholly incorporates the WhatsApp Marks
`
`combined with the word “color” and is otherwise insufficient to materially distinguish it from the
`
`WhatsApp Marks.
`
`74.
`
`Upon information and belief, at least two of the Defendant Domain Names,
`
`<myfacebooklogin.net> and <curtindoimagensnofacebook.com>, are used to host websites that
`
`
`
`13 COMPLAINT FOR CYBERSQUATTING
`(IN REM RELIEF)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00639-RDA-IDD Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 14 of 18 PageID# 14
`
`
`
`attempt to install dangerous viruses and/or malware on consumers’ computers. True and accurate
`
`screen captures of the resulting websites are attached hereto as Exhibits 30 and 31.
`
`75.
`
`The <facebook-verify-inc.com>, <rackearfacebook.com>,
`
`<httpswwwfacebook.com>, <mtouchfacebook.com>, <instagramfrenzy.com>,
`
`<instagramhjack.com>, <espiarwhatsappwep.com>, <parapreciosescribenosporwhatsapp.com>,
`
`<videocall-whatsapp.com>, and <whatsappcolor.com> Defendant Domain Names misdirect
`
`consumers to highly similar directory sites featuring links to third party advertisements that,
`
`upon information and belief, provide “click bait” or are otherwise used to increase “hits” and/or
`
`monetize the sites linked to the Defendant Domain Names. True and accurate copies of screen
`
`shots of each of these directory sites are attached hereto as Exhibits 32 through 41.
`
`76.
`
`The Facebook Marks and Instagram Marks, which are incorporated into the
`
`Defendant Domain Names <facebook-verify-inc.com>, <httpswwwfacebook.com>,
`
`<myfacebooklogin.net>, <rackearfacebook.com>, <curtindoimagensnofacebook.com>,
`
`<mtouchfacebook.com>, <instagramfrenzy.com>, <instagramhjack.com>, are distinctive and
`
`famous and were distinctive and famous at the time the Defendant Domain Names were
`
`registered.
`
`77.
`
`The WhatsApp Marks, which are incorporated into the Defendant Domain Names
`
`<espiarwhatsappwep.com>, <parapreciosescribenosporwhatsapp.com>, <videocall-
`
`whatsapp.com>, and <whatsappcolor.com>, are distinctive and were distinctive at the time the
`
`Defendant Domain Names were registered.
`
`78.
`
`Upon information and belief, the person(s) who registered, trafficked in, or used
`
`the Defendant Domain Names did not believe or have reasonable grounds to believe that the use
`
`of the Defendant Domain Names was a fair use or otherwise lawful.
`
`79.
`
`Indeed, in each of the Defendant Domain Names, the FB Intellectual Property
`
`
`
`14 COMPLAINT FOR CYBERSQUATTING
`(IN REM RELIEF)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00639-RDA-IDD Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 15 of 18 PageID# 15
`
`
`
`remains the distinctive and dominant portion of the domain names; thus, as a whole, the Defendant
`
`Domain Names create the commercial impression of being connected with Plaintiffs.
`
`80.
`
`Despite Plaintiffs’ requests for disclosure, Compsys continues to conceal the
`
`identity(ies) of the authorized licensee(s) of the Defendant Domain Names through its proxy
`
`service.
`
`COUNT ONE
`
`(Cybersquatting under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d))
`
`81.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`82.
`
`Plaintiffs own numerous federal registrations in the FB Intellectual Property and
`
`have continuously used the FB Intellectual Property.
`
`83.
`
`The FB Intellectual Property was distinctive and/or famous at the time of
`
`registration of the Defendant Domain Names.
`
`84.
`
`The Defendant Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to and/or
`
`dilutive of the FB Intellectual Property.
`
`85.
`
`The Defendant Domain Names impair the distinctiveness of the FB Intellectual
`
`Property and weaken the connection in consumers’ minds between Plaintiffs and the FB
`
`Intellectual Property.
`
`86.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Defendant Domain Names were registered,
`
`trafficked in, or used with a bad faith intent to profit from the FB Intellectual Property.
`
`87.
`
`Upon information and belief, the person who registered, trafficked in, or used the
`
`Defendant Domain Names has no trademark or other intellectual property rights in the Defendant
`
`Domain Names.
`
`88.
`
`Upon information and belief, the person who registered, trafficked in, or used the
`
`
`
`15 COMPLAINT FOR CYBERSQUATTING
`(IN REM RELIEF)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00639-RDA-IDD Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 16 of 18 PageID# 16
`
`
`
`Defendant Domain Names made no prior use of the Defendant Domain Names in connection with
`
`the bona fide offering of any goods or services.
`
`89.
`
`Upon information and belief, the person who registered, trafficked in, or used the
`
`Defendant Domain Names made no bona fide non-commercial or fair use of the Defendant
`
`Domain Names in a site accessible under the Defendant Domain Names.
`
`90.
`
`Upon information and belief, the Defendant Domain Names were registered,
`
`trafficked in, or used with an intent to divert Plaintiffs’ consumers to a site(s) accessible through
`
`the Defendant Domain Names that could harm the goodwill represented by the FB Intellectual
`
`Property, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the FB Intellectual
`
`Property, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or
`
`endorsement of the site(s) accessible through the Defendant Domain Names.
`
`91.
`
`The Defendant Domain Names appear in the same channels of trade or in the same
`
`manner as Plaintiffs’ goods and services.
`
`92.
`
`Upon information and belief, the person who registered, trafficked in, or used the
`
`Defendant Domain Names registered multiple domain names that the person knew were identical
`
`or confusingly similar to the trademarks of others at the time of registration.
`
`93.
`
`Plaintiffs are not affiliated or connected with the Defendant Domain Names nor
`
`have they endorsed or sponsored them.
`
`94.
`
`Because of the likelihood of confusion between Plaintiffs and the Defendant
`
`Domain Names, any fault found with the Defendant Domain Names and/or the Defendant Domain
`
`Names’ goods and services will negatively impact the reputation and goodwill Plaintiffs have
`
`created in connection with the FB Intellectual Property.
`
`95.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of such conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered, and will
`
`continue to suffer, monetary loss and irreparable injury to their business, reputation, and goodwill.
`
`
`
`16 COMPLAINT FOR CYBERSQUATTING
`(IN REM RELIEF)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00639-RDA-IDD Document 1 Filed 06/08/20 Page 17 of 18 PageID# 17
`
`
`
`96.
`
`Plaintiffs’ remedy at law is not adequate to compensate for the injuries inflicted on
`
`Plaintiffs. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to an order transferring the Defendant Domain
`
`Names to Plaintiffs.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that the Court grant judgment as follows:
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`A declaration that each of the Defendant Domain Names is a defendant in rem;
`
`A declaration that the <facebook-verify-inc.com>, <httpswwwfacebook.com>,
`
`<myfacebooklogin.net>, <rackearfacebook.com>, <curtindoimagensnofacebook.com>, and
`
`<mtouchfacebook.com> domain names violate Facebook’s rights in its Facebook Marks under
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1125(d);
`
`C.
`
`A declaration that the <instagramfrenzy.com> and <instagramhjack.com> domain
`
`names violate Instagram’s rights in its Instagram Marks under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d);
`
`D.
`
`A declaration that the <espiarwhatsappwep.c