Snap Inc. v. Vinit Panchariya
Claim Number: FA2105001944246
Complainant is Snap Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Emily A. DeBow of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Vinit Panchariya ("Respondent"), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <getintosnap.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 7, 2021; the Forum received payment on May 7, 2021.
On May 10, 2021, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by email to the Forum that the <getintosnap.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On May 14, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 3, 2021 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@getintosnap.com. Also on May 14, 2021, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On June 6, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules, and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant owns and distributes a popular camera and messaging application and storytelling platform. The app was launched in 2011; it had 187 million daily active users at the end of 2017, and 280 million by the first quarter of 2021. Complainant uses SNAP, SNAPCHAT, and related marks in connection with the app and platform, and refers to individual messages shared via the app as "Snaps." Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for SNAP, SNAPCHAT, and related marks in jurisdictions around the world, including United States registrations for both of these terms as standard character marks (with first use dates of 2012 and 2011 respectively). Complainant also owns trademark registrations for its ghost logo and yellow icon. Complainant claims that its marks have become famous as a result of widespread use and public recognition.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <getintosnap.com> in June 2017. The registration is held in the name of a privacy registration service; Respondent's identity was revealed by the registrar in connection with this proceeding. The domain name is being used for a website entitled "Snapchat Spy — Get Someone's Password Online" that displays Complainant's SNAPCHAT mark, ghost logo, and yellow icon. It invites visitors to enter a Snapchat username, purportedly for the purpose of hacking the user's Snapchat account. Upon entering a username, the visitor is told, "The Snapchat account has been hacked successfully. A Password And Email Match Has Been Found." The visitor is then redirected to promotional offers that must be completed to access that information. Complainant alleges that in fact no such hacking tool exists, and that the purpose of the website is actually to deceive users into providing sensitive personal information or taking advertising surveys, and thereby generate revenue for Respondent. Complainant states that there is no relationship between Complainant and Respondent, and that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <getintosnap.com> is confusingly similar to its SNAP mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a), and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <getintosnap.com> incorporates Complainant's registered SNAP trademark, adding the generic terms "get" and "into" and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Snap Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1931127 (Forum Mar. 31, 2021) (finding <loginsnap.com> confusingly similar to SNAP); Snap Inc. v. Srdjan Markovic, FA 1873696 (Forum Dec. 31, 2019) (finding <hacksnap.online> confusingly similar to SNAP). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization and it is being used for a website that displays Complainant's marks, with the apparent purpose of generating revenues for Respondent and possibly to support a phishing scheme. Such conduct does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Snap Inc. v. Sara Hei, FA 1913332 (Forum Oct. 26, 2020) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Snap Inc. v. Srdjan Markovic, supra (same); Snap Inc. v. Sara Hei / Huda Beuutyy / David Marie, FA 1819433 (Forum Jan. 18, 2019) (same).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent used a privacy registration service to register a domain name incorporating Complainant's well-known SNAP mark, and is using the domain name for a website that uses Complainant's marks and appears to be designed to generate revenues for Respondent and possibly support a phishing scheme. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Snap Inc. v. Srdjan Markovic, supra (finding bad faith in similar circumstances); Snap Inc. v. Sara Hei / Huda Beuutyy / David Marie, FA 1819433, supra (same). The Panel so finds.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <getintosnap.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: June 7, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page