Snap Inc. v. Suspended Domain
Claim Number: FA2211002020637
Complainant is Snap Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Emily A. DeBow of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California. Respondent is Suspended Domain (“Respondent”), Panama.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <snapchatsex.club>, 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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 16, 2022; Forum received payment on November 16, 2022.
On November 17, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <snapchatsex.club> 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 November 22, 2022, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 12, 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@snapchatsex.club. Also on November 22, 2022, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On December 19, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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, Snap Inc., offers a well-known social media and communication platform.
Complainant has rights in the SNAPCHAT mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).
Respondent’s <snapchatsex.club> domain name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it incorporates the SNAPCHAT mark in its entirety and adds the term “sex” and the “.club” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no legitimate interests in the <snapchatsex.club> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent any rights in the SNAPCHAT mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the at-issue domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the domain name currently resolves to a parked webpage. Respondent previously used the disputed domain name to resolve to and redirect users to adult-oriented material.
Respondent registered and uses the <snapchatsex.club> domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the domain name in order to divert customers for commercial gain. The disputed domain name previously resolved to a website containing adult-oriented material. The at-issue domain name currently resolves to a parked page. Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SNAPCHAT mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has trademark rights in the SNAPCHAT mark.
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 the SNAPCHAT trademark.
Respondent previously used the at-issue domain name to address a website that offers adult content. The domain name now resolves to a parked page.
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 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 at-issue domain name is identical to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant shows that it registered the SNAPCHAT mark with multiple government agencies worldwide including the USPTO. Complainant’s trademark registration for SNAPCHAT with at least one recognized trademark registrar is conclusive evidence of its rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Wang Liqun, FA 1625332 (Forum July 17, 2015) (finding, “Registration of a mark with a governmental authority (or, in this case, multiple governmental authorities) is sufficient to establish rights in the mark for purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i)”).
Respondent’s <snapchatsex.club> domain name contains Complainant’s entire SNAPCHAT trademark followed by the term “sex” and with all followed by the “.club” top-level domain name. The differences between Complainant’s SNAPCHAT trademark and Respondent’s at-issue domain name fail to distinguish the domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <snapchatsex.club> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SNAPCHAT trademark. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exist where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy.); see also Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Wang Liqun, FA 1625332 (Forum July 17, 2015) (“The addition of top-level domains, such as “.club,” must also be ignored for the purposes of 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, Complainant’s prima facie showing acts conclusively.
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the <snapchatsex.club> 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.
The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the registrant of <snapchatsex.club> as “Suspend Domain” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that otherwise tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by the <snapchatsex.club> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent’s confusingly similar <snapchatsex.club> domain name previously directed internet users to a website that offered adult-oriented content. The website made use of Complainant’s Ghost Logo and Snapchat Yellow. Respondent’s use of the <snapchatsex.club> to facilitate its own content constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Altria Group, Inc. and Altria Group Distribution Company v. xiazihong, FA1732665 (Forum July 7, 2017) (holding that “[u]se of a domain name to display adult-oriented images is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the Policy.”).
Respondent’s at-issue domain name currently addresses a parking page thus showing neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See TGI Friday’s of Minnesota, Inc. v. Tulip Company / Tulip Trading Company, FA 1691369 (Forum Oct. 10, 2016) (”Respondent uses the domain for a parking page displaying various links that consumers are likely to associate with Complainant, but that simply redirect to additional advertisements and links that divert traffic to third-party websites not affiliated with Complainant… The Panel here finds that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.”); see also, Elite Model Management Corporation v. Wesley Perkins, D2006-0297 (WIPO May 15, 2006) (finding no right or legitimate interest where domain name was parked with Sedo.com).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and demonstrates Respondent’s lack of rights and lack of interests in respect of the at-issue domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, there is evidence from which the Panel may conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
As mentioned above regarding rights and interests, Respondent used the at-issue domain name to address a webpage directed to adult content presumptively for commercial gain. Such use of the domain name is disruptive to Complainant’s business and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith regarding the at-issue domain name per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See PopSockets LLC v. san mao, FA 1740903 (Forum Aug. 27, 2017) (finding disruption of a complainant’s business which was not directly commercial competitive behavior was nonetheless sufficient to establish bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Google Inc. v. Bassano, FA 232958 (Forum Mar. 8, 2004) (holding that the respondent’s use of the <googlesex.info> domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to a website featuring adult-oriented content constituted bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also H-D U.S.A., LLC v. Nobuyoshi Tanaka / Personal, FA1312001534740 (Forum Jan. 31, 2014) (“Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent is acting in bad faith because Respondent is using the <harley-davidsonsales.com> domain name to tarnish Complainant’s HARLEY-DAVIDSON mark, as the Panel also finds that the content displayed on the resolving website constitutes adult-oriented content.”).
Additionally, the at-issue domain name currently addresses a parked webpage. Such use of the of the confusingly similar <snapchatsex.club> domain name is further evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See VideoLink, Inc. v. Xantech Corporation, FA1503001608735 (Forum May 12, 2015) (“Failure to actively use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”); see also, DTTM Operations LLC v. PMG Consultant, Private Management Group, D2016-1218 (WIPO Aug. 24, 2016) (“The Panel notes that the disputed domain name resolves to a parked webpage that is tantamount to ‘passive holding’ of the disputed domain name. This kind of activity may constitute evidence of bad faith use.”).
Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SNAPCHAT mark when it registered <snapchatsex.club> as a domain name. Respondent’s actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s SNAPCHAT trademark and from Respondent’s use of Complainant’s logo in conjunction with the at-issue domain name. Respondent’s registration and use of the confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s trademark rights in SNAPCHAT, and thus in the trademark laden domain name, further demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, 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).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <snapchatsex.club> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: December 19, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page