Snap Inc. v. Mohamed Med
Claim Number: FA2306002051139
Complainant is Snap Inc. ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Dennis L. Wilson of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Mohamed Med ("Respondent"), Morocco.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <snapnow.site>, 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 28, 2023; Forum received payment on June 28, 2023.
On June 28, 2023, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by email to Forum that the <snapnow.site> 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 July 3, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 24, 2023 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@snapnow.site. Also on July 3, 2023, 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 July 30, 2023, 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 187 million daily active users at the end of 2017, and 383 million by the first quarter of 2023. Complainant uses SNAP, SNAPCHAT, and related marks in connection with the app and platform, and refers to individual messages shared via the app as "Snaps." Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for SNAP, SNAPCHAT, and related marks in jurisdictions around the world, including United States registrations for both of these terms as standard character marks (with first use dates of 2012 and 2011 respectively). Complainant also owns trademark registrations for its ghost logo and yellow icon. Complainant claims that its marks have become famous as a result of widespread use and public recognition, and notes that such a finding has been made in several prior proceedings under the Policy. See, e.g., Snap Inc. v. Dan Premium, FA 1931133 (Forum Mar. 25, 2021) ("Complainant's marks have become internationally recognized and well-known. This fame has been recognized by a number of other Panels.").
The disputed domain name <snapnow.site> was registered in July 2022. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. The domain name is being used for a website entitled "Snap messages detector" that displays Complainant's SNAP mark and ghost logo, and purports to enable users to "spy on" a Snap account by entering the username for the account. The website then prompts the user to complete various advertising surveys and enter the user's phone number. Complainant alleges that website is intended to generate revenue by tricking users into providing personal information and taking advertising surveys. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, has no relationship with Complainant, and is not authorized to use Complainant's marks.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <snapnow.site> is confusingly similar to its SNAP 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 <snapnow.site> incorporates Complainant's registered SNAP trademark, adding the generic term "now" and the ".site" 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. Abdelghani Oukettou / Payoneer, FA 2024985 (Forum Jan. 23, 2023) (finding <darksnap.site> confusingly similar to SNAP); Snap Inc. v. Sahil Kumar / SRS Seo Solutions, FA 1977981 (Forum Jan. 24, 2022) (finding <snapbrute.com> confusingly similar to SNAP); Snap Inc. v. Victoria Waldrip / Jon Jenkins / GRQ, FA 1823861 (Forum Feb. 7, 2019) (finding <snapfollows.site> confusingly similar to SNAP); NIKE, Inc. & Nike Innovate, C.V. v. ZhangZhongwu / nike1, FA 1693280 (Forum Oct. 22, 2016) (finding <nikenow.com> confusingly similar to NIKE). 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 and it is being used for a misleading website that displays Complainant's marks, with the apparent purpose of generating revenue for Respondent and possibly to support a phishing scheme. Such conduct does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Snap Inc. v. Abdelghani Oukettou / Payoneer, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Snap Inc. v. Sahil Kumar / SRS Seo Solutions, supra (same); Snap Inc. v. Victoria Waldrip / Jon Jenkins / GRQ, supra (same).
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 SNAP mark, and is using the domain name for a misleading website that uses Complainant's marks and appears to be designed to generate revenue for Respondent and possibly support a phishing scheme. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Snap Inc. v. Abdelghani Oukettou / Payoneer, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Snap Inc. v. Sahil Kumar / SRS Seo Solutions, supra (same); Snap Inc. v. Victoria Waldrip / Jon Jenkins / GRQ, supra (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 <snapnow.site> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: July 31, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page