Snap, Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp.
Claim Number: FA1707001741287
Complainant is Snap, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Peter E. Kidd 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 <snapchatscorehack.com>, registered with TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd.
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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 24, 2017; the Forum received payment on July 24, 2017.
On July 26, 2017, TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <snapchatscorehack.com> domain name is registered with TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd. 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 July 26, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 15, 2017 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@snapchatscorehack.com. Also on July 26, 2017, 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 August 16, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco, 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 contends as follows:
Complainant designs and globally distributes the mobile messaging application, “Snapchat.” Complainant uses the SNAPCHAT mark in conjunction with its business practices.
Complainant registered the SNAPCHAT mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 4,933,187; registered July 30, 2013). Additionally, Complainant registered the SNAPCHAT mark with multiple government entities throughout North and South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia.
Respondent’s <snapchatscorehack.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SNAPCHAT mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, adding the generic terms “score” and “hack,” and the “.com” generic top level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in <snapchatscorehack.com>. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the SNAPCHAT mark in any regard, nor is Respondent affiliated with Complainant. Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain. Respondent’s <snapchatscorehack.com> resolves to a website that prominently displays Complainant’s SNAPCHAT mark and logo, offering hacking software to artificially “increase one’s ‘Snapchat score’” following the completion of online advertising surveys.
Respondent registered and is using <snapchatscorehack.com> in bad faith. The disputed domain name disrupts Complainant’s business by providing users with hacking software to manipulate Complainant’s servers for Respondent’s commercial gain. Respondent registered <snapchatscorehack.com> with actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights to the SNAPCHAT mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in the SNAPCHAT mark through its registration of such mark with the USPTO as well as through its additional registrations worldwide.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in its SNAPCHAT trademark.
Respondent’s <snapchatscorehack.com> domain name addresses a website prominently displaying Complainant’s SNAPCHAT mark and logo. There, Respondent offers software to “increase one’s ‘Snapchat score’” in exchange for completing online advertising surveys.
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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant’s registration of its SNAPCHAT mark with the USPTO, or any of the other recognized registries where Complainant has registered such mark, demonstrates Complainant’s rights in a mark under the Policy. See Fossil Group, Inc. v. wuruima wu, FA 1544486 (Forum Mar. 21, 2014) (holding, “Complainant’s registration of the FOSSIL mark with trademark agencies worldwide, including the USPTO and SAIC, establishes Complainant’s rights in the FOSSIL mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
The at-issue domain name consists of Complainant’s SNAPCHAT trademark appended with the descriptive terms “score” and “hack” all followed by the top-level domain name “.com”. The differences between the domain name and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish one from the other for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that the at-issue <snapchatscorehack.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SNAPCHAT mark. See Abbott Laboratories v. Miles White, FA 1646590 (Forum Dec. 10, 2015) (holding that the addition of descriptive terms, particularly terms that pertain to complainant’s business, do not adequately distinguish a disputed domain name from complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).
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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶4(c) circumstances Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.
WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name lists “Domain Admin” of “Whois Privacy Corp” as the domain name’s registrant and there is nothing in the record that suggests Respondent is commonly known by the <snapchatscorehack.com> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where the respondent was not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission from the complainant to use the trademarked name).
Respondent’s <snapchatscorehack.com> domain name addresses a website that prominently displays Complainant’s SNAPCHAT mark and logo, offering software to “increase one’s ‘Snapchat score’” following the completion of an online advertising survey. Using the domain name in this manner shows neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of such domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) regarding the at-issue domain name. See Microsoft Corp. v. Webmasterz Entertainment, FA 1266932 (Forum Aug. 5, 2009) (determining that there was no bona fide offering, or legitimate use, when the domain name at issue was being used to hack into the accounts and services of the complainant and complainant’s customers); see also, Yahoo! Inc. v. Yahoozone Services / Nitin Gupta, FA 1512791 (Forum Aug. 23, 2013) (finding respondent’s use of the domain name <yahooz0ne.com> for a commercial website providing services to interfere with, or hack, Complainant’s services did not constitute a bona fide offering or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name).
Given the foregoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and conclusively demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.
The at‑issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As discussed below, Policy ¶ 4(b) circumstances are present which lead the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
As discussed above regarding rights and interests, Respondent’s domain name was registered and used to address a website that displays Complainant’s SNAPCHAT trademark and offers services that can be used to, in effect, hack Complainant’s point based scoring facility. Respondent requires website users to complete surveys in exchange for such services. It follows that Respondent offers its services ultimately for financial gain. Using the confusingly similar at-issue domain name in this manner is disruptive to Complainant’s business and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4 (b)(iii). See Yahoo! Inc. v. Yahoozone Services / Nitin Gupta, FA 1512791 (Forum Aug. 23, 2013) (finding Respondent’s hacking services “disruptive of Complainant’s business, as well as competitive with the commercial and profit-generating endeavor that Complainant seeks to make through the services that Respondent is hacking.”); see also, Yahoo! Inc. v. N/A / asghar hasan zadeh, FA 1517435 (Forum Aug. 9, 2006) (“Complainant asserts that although Respondent may not be a competitor of Complainant, the fact that Respondent’s activities are in opposition to Complainant is sufficient to define Respondent as a competitor under the UDRP… The Panel finds that Respondent is disrupting Complainant’s legitimate business, proving bad faith use and registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”). Such use also demonstrates bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Forum November 21, 2002) (finding that a respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name to attract Internet users to its commercial website); see also, Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Forum November 22, 2002) (finding that if a respondent profits from its diversionary use of the complainant’s mark when the domain name resolves to commercial websites and the respondent fails to contest the complaint, it may be concluded that the respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <snapchatscorehack.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: August 17, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page