Snap Inc. v. Soloman Korban
Claim Number: FA2211002020962
Complainant is Snap Inc. ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Emily A. DeBow of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, United States. Respondent is Soloman Korban ("Respondent"), United States.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <snapchatbang.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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 E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 18, 2022; Forum received payment on November 18, 2022.
On November 21, 2022, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to Forum that the <snapchatbang.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@snapchatbang.com. Also on November 22, 2022, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 David E. Sorkin 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 owns and distributes a popular camera and messaging application and storytelling platform. The app was launched in 2011; it had 70 million daily active users by the end of 2014, and 363 million by the end of the third quarter of 2022. Complainant uses SNAPCHAT and related marks in connection with the app and platform, and asserts that the SNAPCHAT mark has become famous (citing several decisions under the Policy that have so found). Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for the SNAPCHAT mark in standard character form in the United States, the European Union, and other jurisdictions worldwide.
The disputed domain name <snapchatbang.com> was registered in October 2019. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. In May 2022, Complainant learned that the domain name was being used to redirect users to an unrelated adult website; Complainant attempted to contact Respondent at that time but did not receive a reply. In September 2022, the domain name begin redirecting to malware websites. It now redirects to a different adult website. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, has no relationship with Complainant, and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <snapchatbang.com> is confusingly similar to its SNAPCHAT mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used 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 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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").
The disputed domain name <snapchatbang.com> incorporates Complainant's registered SNAPCHAT trademark, adding the descriptive term "bang" and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Snap Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Domain Professionals, LLC / Domain Master / Global Personals, LLC / Domain Master / Worldwide Connect Partners, LLC, FA 1933412 (Forum May 11, 2021) (finding <snapbang.com> confusingly similar to SNAPCHAT); Snap Inc. v. Keith Buckley, FA 1806648 (Forum Oct. 22, 2018) (finding <snapchatbook.com> confusingly similar to SNAPCHAT). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. Its sole apparent use has been to redirect users to unrelated commercial websites, including sites that attempt to disseminate malware. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Snap Inc. v. Mehdi MAHREZ / M-STUDIO WEB, FA 1945662 (Forum June 24, 2021) (finding lack of rights or interests where domain name redirected users to third-party sites containing malware); Snap Inc. v. Sol Ayal / Southern telecom, FA 1942258 (Forum June 1, 2021) (finding lack of rights or interests where domain names redirected users to unrelated commercial website).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent used a privacy registration service to register a domain name incorporating Complainant's famous mark, and is using the domain name to redirect users to unrelated commercial websites, including sites that attempt to disseminate malware. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Mary Washington Healthcare v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, FA 1976877 (Forum Jan. 13, 2022) (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba d/b/a Toshiba Corp. v. Fabio Martinez Salinas / Fabio Martinez, FA 1695420 (Forum Oct. 31, 2016) (same). The Panel so finds.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <snapchatbang.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: December 22, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page