Snap Inc. v. Louis Douglas
Claim Number: FA1810001814324
Complainant is Snap Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Peter Kidd of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Louis Douglas (“Respondent”), Netherlands.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <hack-snaps.com>, registered with Gransy, s.r.o.
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 A. Einhorn appointed as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 30, 2018; the Forum received payment on October 30, 2018.
On November 1, 2018, Gransy, s.r.o. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <hack-snaps.com> domain name is registered with Gransy, s.r.o. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Gransy, s.r.o. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gransy, s.r.o. 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 November 7, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 27, 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@hack-snaps.com. Also on November 7, 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 November 28, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David A. Einhorn 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 the popular SNAPCHAT camera and messaging application, and storytelling platform that, among other things, allows users to share photographs, videos, and messages called “Snaps” with others via mobile devices. Complainant has rights in the SNAPCHAT mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 4,375,712, registered July 30, 2013). Respondent’s <hack-snaps.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it adds the letter “s” to pluralize the dominant portion of the SNAPCHAT mark, adds the generic term “hack,” adds a hyphen, and adds the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <hack-snaps.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the mark. Respondent also does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the infringing domain name to offer a hacking tool that purports to access and manipulate data on Complainant’s servers as a means to generate advertising referral income.
Further, Respondent uses the domain name to trick users into revealing personal or confidential information under the promise of a nonexistent hacking tool.
Respondent registered and uses the <hack-snaps.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business by using the domain name to divert internet traffic to its competing webpage for Respondent’s own financial gain. Further, Respondent engages in a phishing scheme designed to acquire personal information from unsuspecting users. Additionally, given the longstanding fame associated with the SNAPCHAT mark, Respondent clearly registered the domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a response in this proceeding. The Panel notes that Respondent registered the <hack-snaps.com> domain name on October 26, 2017.
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.”).
Complainant claims rights in the SNAPCHAT mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 4,375,712, registered July 30, 2013). Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently confers a complainant’s rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Humor Rainbow, Inc. v. James Lee, FA 1626154 (Forum Aug. 11, 2015) (stating, “There exists an overwhelming consensus amongst UDRP panels that USPTO registrations are sufficient in demonstrating a complainant’s rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and its vested interests in a mark. . . .”) Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the SNAPCHAT mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant next argues that Respondent’s <hack-snaps.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it adds the letter “s” to pluralize the dominant portion of the SNAPCHAT mark, adds the generic term “hack,” and adds a hyphen. Similar changes in a registered mark have failed to sufficiently distinguish a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i). See LodgeWorks Partners, L.P. v. Isaac Goldstein / POSTE RESTANTE, FA 1717300 (Forum Mar. 20, 2017) (“Respondent’s <archerhotels.com> is confusingly similar to complainant’s ARCHER HOTEL mark.”); see also ADP, LLC. v. Ella Magal, FA 1738958 (Forum Aug, 2, 2017) (“Respondent’s <workforce-now.com> domain name appropriates the dominant portion of Complainant’s ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark and adds a hyphen and the gTLD “.com.” These changes do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark.”) and see also Star Stable Entertainment AB v. Rafael Vele, D2015-2314 (WIPO Feb. 5, 2016) (finding that the addition of the word “hack” to complainant’s STAR STABLE mark did not avoid confusing similarity). The Panel therefore finds that the <hack-snaps.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the SNAPCHAT mark under Policy ¶4(a)(i).
Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <hack-snaps.com> domain name. Where a response is lacking, relevant information includes the WHOIS and any other assertions by a complainant regarding the nature of its relationship with a respondent. See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark). The WHOIS identifies “Louis Douglas” as the registrant. Complainant asserts that no evidence exists to show that Respondent has ever been legitimately known by the SNAPCHAT mark. Panels may use these assertions as evidence of lacking rights or legitimate interests. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration). Complainant alleges that Respondent has never been legitimately affiliated with Complainant, has never been known by the domain name prior to its registration, and Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use the mark in any manner. Accordingly, the Panel agrees that Respondent is not commonly known by the <hack-snaps.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Next, Complainant argues that Respondent uses the infringing domain name to offer a hacking tool that purports to access and manipulate data on Complainant’s servers as a means to generate advertising referral income. Using a confusingly similar domain name in such a manner can indicate a failure to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the Policy. See Microsoft Corporation v. Webmasterz Entertainment, FA 1266932 (Forum Aug. 5, 2009) (finding a failure to make a bona fide offering of goods or services of a legitimate noncommercial or fair use where Respondent used the domain name to ”resolve to Respondent’s websites featuring advertisements and products designed to access Complainant’s database and the passwords of other users”). Complainant provides a screenshot of the resolving webpage associated with the disputed domain name, which appears to display various links, Complainant’s marks and logos, and prompts users to select links to hack Complainant’s customers’ accounts. As
such, the Panel holds that Respondent’s use of the domain name provides evidence of Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and/or (iii).
Further, Complainant claims that Respondent uses the domain name to trick users into revealing personal or confidential information under the promise of a nonexistent hacking tool. Phishing schemes can evince a failure to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Google Inc. v. Pritam Singh / Pandaje Technical Services Pvt Ltd., FA 1660771 (Forum Mar. 17, 2016) (agreeing that respondent has not shown any bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) as the respondent used the complainant’s mark and logo on a resolving website containing offers for technical support and password recovery services, and soliciting Internet users’ personal information). On the resolving webpage associated with the domain name, there appears to be various places where users can enter in personal information. Complainant claims that the purported hacking tool does not exist, and Respondent merely uses the domain name to acquire information under false pretenses. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the domain name in connection with an apparent phishing scheme fails to indicate a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Thus, Complainant has also satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant claims that Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business by using the domain name to divert internet traffic to its competing webpage for Respondent’s own financial gain. 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 LoanDepot.com, LLC v. Kaolee (Kay) Vang-Thao, FA1762308 (Forum Jan. 9, 2018) (finding that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to offer competing loan services disrupts Complainant’s business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). As noted above, Complainant provides a screenshot of the resolving webpage associated with the disputed domain name, which appears to display various links, Complainant’s marks and logos, and prompts users to select links to hack Complainant’s customers’ accounts. Accordingly, the Panel agrees that Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business and attempted to commercially benefit off Complainant’s mark in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) & (iv).
Further, Complainant claims that Respondent engages in a phishing scheme designed to acquire personal information from unsuspecting users. 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, FA1625750 (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).”). As outlined above, the resolving webpage associated with the domain name appears to contain various locations where users can enter in personal information. Complainant claims that the purported hacking tool does not exist, and Respondent merely uses the domain name to acquire information under false pretenses. Thus, the Panel concludes that Complainant has sufficiently alleged Respondent’s bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Additionally, Complainant claims that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SNAPCHAT mark at the time of registering the <hack-snaps.com> domain name. 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 given the longstanding fame associated with the SNAPCHAT mark and Respondent’s use of Complainant’s logos on the resolving webpage associated with the infringing domain name, Respondent clearly registered the domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark. The Panel agrees with Complainant and finds that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark, demonstrating bad faith under Policy registration¶ 4(a)(iii).
Thus, Complainant has also satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <hack-snaps.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David A. Einhorn, Panelist
Dated: December 11, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page