Snap Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp.
Claim Number: FA1803001775440
Complainant is Snap Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Peter Kidd of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp. (“Respondent”), Bahamas.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <snaphack-online.com> and <cnaphack-online.com>, registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 12, 2018; the Forum received payment on March 12, 2018.
On March 13, 2018, Internet Domain Service BS Corp confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <snaphack-online.com> and <cnaphack-online.com> domain names are registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Internet Domain Service BS Corp 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 March 20, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 9, 2018 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@snaphack-online.com, postmaster@cnaphack-online.com. Also on March 20, 2018, 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 April 11, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Kenneth L. Port 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant, Snap Inc., owns and distributes the enormously popular SNAPCHAT camera, messaging application, and storytelling platform. Complainant uses the SNAPCHAT and SNAP marks to provide and market its products and services. Complainant has rights in the SNAPCHAT and SNAP marks based upon their registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. SNAPCHAT- Reg. No. 4,971,934 registered Jan. 9, 2016. SNAP- Reg. No. 4,345,533, registered June 4, 2013.). See Compl. Annexes O-P. Respondent’s <snaphack-online.com> and <cnaphack-online.com> domain names are confusingly similar to the SNAP mark, as each contains the either the mark in its entirety, or the mark replacing the letter “s” with the letter “c,” and merely add the descriptive terms “hack and “online”, separated by a hyphen, and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.”
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <snaphack-online.com> and <cnaphack-online.com> domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the names and Complainant has not granted Respondent permission or license to use the SNAP mark for any purpose. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent is using the <snaphack-online.com> and <cnaphack-online.com> domain names to divert Internet users to a website which offers malicious hacking software in order to conduct a phishing scheme. See Compl. Annex S. Further, Respondent engages in typosquatting with the domain names.
Respondent has registered and used the <snaphack-online.com> and <cnaphack-online.com> domain names in bad faith. Further, Respondent is using the disputed domain name to divert traffic away from Complainant’s website, which in turn disrupts Complainant’s business. Additionally, Respondent uses the domain names to provide malicious hacking software to phish for users’ information. See Compl. Annex S. Moreover, Respondent engages in typosquatting by substituting the letter “c” for the first letter “s” in the SNAP mark. Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain names with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SNAP mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. The disputed domain names, <snaphack-online.com> and <cnaphack-online.com>, were created on March 31, 2017 and July 20, 2017, respectively.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain names; and that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain names.
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 Panel finds that the disputed domain names, <snaphack-online.com> and <cnaphack-online.com>, are confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, SNAPCHAT and SNAP. Complainant has adequately plead its rights and interests in and to these trademarks. Respondent arrives at the disputed domain names by adding a hyphen and the generic word “online” to Complainant’s trademarks. In one case, Respondent also changes an “s” to a “c”. This is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant’s trademarks.
As such, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks.
The Panel further finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain names. Respondent has no right, permission or license to register the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Respondent is not using the disputed domain names to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent appears to be using the <snaphack-online.com> and <cnaphack-online.com> domain names to divert Internet users to a website which offers malicious hacking software in order to conduct a phishing scheme. See Compl. Annex S. Further, Respondent engages in typosquatting with the domain names as it changes an “s” to a “c”.
This conduct fails to establish rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain names.
The Panel also finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain names. Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <snaphack-online.com> and <cnaphack-online.com> domain names in bad faith by disrupting Complainant’s business and creating a likelihood for confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain names to commercially benefit by offering competing goods or services. Using a disputed domain name that disrupts a complainant’s business and trades upon the goodwill of a complainant for commercial gain can evince bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) & (iv). See Snap, Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1707001741287 (Forum Aug. 17, 2017) (holding use of the disputed domain name in connection with a hacking website is disruptive to complainant’s business and demonstrates respondent’s bad faith); see also Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain). Complainant provides a screenshot for the <cnaphack-online.com> domain name’s resolving webpage, which does appear to offer a hacking service. See Compl. Annex S. Complainant alleges the commercial gain comes from phishing for users’ information.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business and attempts to commercially benefit from Complainant’s mark in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) & (iv).
Additionally, Complainant argues that Respondent engages in a phishing scheme to obtain users’ information. Using a confusingly similar domain name to phish for information can provide evidence of bad faith registration and use within the meaning of 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).”). Complainant argues that Respondent obtains users’ information when they enter a username in attempts to hack that user’s account. See Compl. Annex S.
Therefore, the Panel finds that that Respondent’s phishing scheme demonstrates bad faith use and registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Further, Complainant contends that by replacing the letter “s” with the letter “c” in the <cnaphack-online.com> disputed domain name, Respondent engages in typosquatting. Although typosquatting can be evidence of bad faith on part of Respondent, the Panel here refuses to adopt this reasoning. The letter “s” is rather infrequently confused with the letter “c” and “snap” is rarely, if ever, misspelled as “cnap.” As such, the Panel rejects Complainant’s typosquatting argument.
Further, Complainant claims that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SNAP and SNAPCHAT marks at the time of registering the <snaphack-online.com> and <cnaphack-online.com> domain names. Actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registering a confusingly similar domain name can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). Complainant contends that Respondent must have known of Complainant’s rights due to the longstanding fame of the marks and Respondent’s use of Complainant’s marks and logos on the resolving webpages. See Compl. Annex S. The Panel finds that that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark, demonstrating bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain names.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <snaphack-online.com> and <cnaphack-online.com> domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: April 12, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page