Snap Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp.
Claim Number: FA2112001977982
Complainant is Snap Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Emily A. DeBow of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp. (“Respondent”), Bahamas.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <snapripper.com> (the “disputed domain name”), registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp (the “Registrar”).
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Lynda M. Braun as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 21, 2021; the Forum received payment on December 21, 2021.
On December 23, 2021, the Registrar confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <snapripper.com> disputed domain name is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. The Registrar has verified that Respondent is bound by the Internet Domain Service BS Corp 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 December 28, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 18, 2022 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@snapripper.com. Also on December 28, 2021, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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 January 24, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Lynda M. Braun 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant owns the social media applications called Snapchat, later renamed as Snap. Complainant owns the SNAPCHAT trademark, the SNAP trademark and various marks incorporating the term “snap”. On September 24, 2016, Complainant changed its name from Snapchat Inc. to Snap Inc., to reflect Complainant’s growing list of products beyond the Snapchat App.
Complainant contends that it has rights in the SNAP mark based on registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., United States Reg. No. 4,345,533, registered on June 4, 2013) (referred to collectively as the “SNAP Mark”). Complainant also claims that Respondent’s <snapripper.com> disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SNAP Mark because it merely adds the term “ripper” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to the SNAP Mark. Complainant further contends that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name since Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s SNAP Mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Finally, Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that Complainant holds valid trademark rights in the SNAP Mark. The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SNAP Mark, that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name 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 disputed domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and
(3) the disputed 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 Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the SNAP Mark based on registration with the USPTO (e.g., United States Reg. No. 4,345,533, registered on June 4, 2013). See Spotify AB v. Olodo Glory / Sutherland, FA 2106001951577 (Forum July 15, 2021) (“Complainant’s registration of the SPOTIFY mark with the USPTO sufficiently demonstrates Complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
In addition to the SNAP Mark, Complainant owns numerous United States registrations for its SNAPCHAT trademark, its [IMAGE OMITTED] (“Ghost Logo”), which has been in use since its app was launched in 2011. Moreover, Complainant is also the owner of the United States trademark for the color yellow [IMAGE OMITTED] (“Snapchat Yellow”) in connection with software for, inter alia, sending and receiving photographs and video.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SNAP Mark under the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s SNAP Mark in its entirety, followed by the term “ripper”, and then followed by the gTLD “.com”. The inclusion of a descriptive term such as “ripper” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the SNAP Mark. UDRP panels have consistently held that the addition of descriptive terms is not sufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a complainant’s mark. See Dell Inc. v. pushpender chauhan, FA 1784548 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“Respondent merely adds the term ‘supports’ and an ‘.org’ gTLD to the DELL mark.
Finally, the inclusion of the gTLD .com” in the disputed domain name does not change the conclusion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SNAP Mark. See, e.g., Snap Inc. v. Nestor Hernandez, F1709001749325 (Forum Oct. 25, 2017) (use of a gTLD is insufficient to defeat a test of confusingly similarity).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been established by Complainant.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
To establish rights and legitimate interests, a complainant must first make a prima facie case that respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
As Respondent did not respond to the Complaint, Respondent cannot have carried its burden to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel notes that, given the facts here, Respondent would have been hard-pressed to furnish availing arguments, had it chosen to respond:
Specifically, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the SNAP Mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. Further, the Panel agrees with Complainant and finds that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to profit from advertisements and to phish for personal information via a survey to be completed by Internet users arriving at the site. The use of advertisements by Respondent does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Party Night Inc., FA 144647 (Forum Mar. 18, 2003) (holding that the respondent’s use of “confusingly similar derivatives of Complainant’s WELLS FARGO mark to divert Internet users to websites featuring pop-up advertisements” was not a bona fide offering of goods or services). Moreover, phishing also does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See United States Postal Service v. Kehinde Okunola / Genuine ICT Centre, FA 1785420 (Forum June 6, 2018) (Respondent uses the disputed domain name both to sell services competing with Complainant’s business and to phish for personal information from Internet users arriving at Respondent’s website). Here, Complainant has provided screenshots of the disputed domain name’s resolving webpage which features hyperlinks and offers downloadable software allow users to recover their lost Snap passwords and to hack into other users’ Snap accounts, but in reality, the webpage fraudulently phishes for users’ personal information by requiring them to complete an online survey.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been established by Complainant.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Panel concludes that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
First, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because Respondent is attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s own website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's SNAP Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the content thereon. Bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) can be found where a respondent uses a confusingly similar domain name to falsely indicate an association with a complainant. See AOL LLC v. iTech Ent, LLC, FA 726227 (Forum July 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent took advantage of the confusing similarity between the <theotheraol.com> and <theotheraol.net> domain names and the complainant’s AOL mark, which indicates bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Second, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith since it had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SNAP Mark. The SNAP Mark (as well as the SNAPCHAT trademark) have been widely recognized and relied upon by online consumers throughout the world. Respondent did not register the disputed domain name until April 1, 2020, well after Complainant’s SNAP and SNAPCHAT trademarks became internationally recognized and registered, thus resulting in Respondent’s bad faith.
Other examples demonstrating that Respondent had actual knowledge of the SNAPCHAT Mark prior to registration of the disputed domain name, and therefore exhibited bad faith, include Respondent’s use of the Snapchat Yellow and Ghost Logo trademarks on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves. See Snap Inc. v. View Bird, FA1709001749823 (Forum Oct. 30, 2017) (where Respondent included “content mirroring Complainant’s on the resolving site” the Panel found “the SNAPCHAT mark’s fame, coupled with Respondent’s use of the Ghost Logo, indicates Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant when registering and using the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Finally, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith since Respondent had engaged in a fraudulent phishing scheme. Use of a disputed domain name to perpetuate a phishing scheme constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc. v. LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA1506001625750 (Forum July 17, 2015) (“Respondent uses the <klabzuba-oilgas.com> domain to engage in phishing, which means Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) (the disputed domain name resolved to a webpage that allowed users to input their personal information, which Complainant claims Respondent uses for nefarious purposes).
Here, the disputed domain name’s resolving webpage features hyperlinks and offers downloadable software to allow users to recover their lost Snap passwords and to hack into other users’ Snap accounts, but in reality, the webpage fraudulently phishes for those users’ personal information by requiring them to complete an online survey, indicative of bad faith.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been established by Complainant.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <snapripper.com> disputed domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Lynda M. Braun, Panelist
Dated: February 4, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page