Snap Inc. v. Not disclosed Not disclosed / Snap Tools
Claim Number: FA1912001875863
Complainant is Snap Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Emily DeBow of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, United States. Respondent is Not disclosed Not disclosed / Snap Tools (“Respondent”), United States.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <onlinesnapchathack.com>, registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp.
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 December 18, 2019; the Forum received payment on December 18, 2019.
On December 20, 2019, Internet Domain Service BS Corp confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <onlinesnapchathack.com> domain name is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 December 26, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 15, 2020 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@onlinesnapchathack.com. Also on December 26, 2019, 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 January 20, 2020, 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, Snap Inc., owns and distributes a camera and messaging application. Complainant has rights in the SNAPCHAT mark based upon the registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 4,375,712, registered Jul. 30, 2013). Respondent’s <onlinesnapchathack.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it wholly incorporates Complainant’s SNAPCHAT mark, simply adding the generic or descriptive terms “online” and “hack” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <onlinesnapchathack.com> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s SNAPCHAT mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent is not using the <onlinesnapchathack.com> domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the domain to promote unlawful services and further a phishing scheme.
Respondent registered and uses the <onlinesnapchathack.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent advertises a service intended to disrupt Complainant’s business. Also, Respondent attempts to attract Internet users to its competing website for commercial gain. Additionally, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to engage in a phishing scheme. Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SNAPCHAT mark as shown through use of Complainant’s logo and information on Respondent’s own website.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name was registered on August 21, 2016.
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”).
Complainant has rights in the SNAPCHAT mark based upon the registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,375,712, registered Jul. 30, 2013). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is generally sufficient to establish rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Since Complainant provides evidence of its registrations of the SNAPCHAT mark with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s <onlinesnapchathack.com> domain name is identical and/or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it wholly incorporates Complainant’s SNAPCHAT mark, simply adding generic/descriptive terms. Addition of generic terms to a mark is insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from that mark. See MTD Products Inc v J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) (“The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms ‘genuine’ and ‘parts’). Here, Complainant notes that the only differences between the disputed domain name and the SNAPCHAT mark are the additions of the terms “online” and “hack.” Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <onlinesnapchathack.com> domain name. Specifically, Complainant argues Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use the SNAPCHAT mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information can support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark.). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may demonstrate the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. 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). The WHOIS information of record notes “Not disclosed Not disclosed / Snap Tools” as the registrant and no information suggests that Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the SNAPCHAT mark in any way. Thus the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Additionally, Complainant argues that Respondent doesn’t use the disputed domain for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use but rather uses the domain to promote unlawful services and further a phishing scheme. Offering illegal services through a disputed domain name does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Nintendo of America Inc. v. Dajana Shawn, FA 1798791 (Forum Sep. 4, 2018) (“The use of a Domain Name to promote illegal products or services is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).”). Similarly, use of a disputed domain name to further a phishing scheme is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Nordstrom, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1654490 (Forum Feb. 1, 2016) (finding respondent failed under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii) as it phished for internet users’ personal information via a fake survey). Here, Complainant argues that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to promote of an unlawful hacking service and perpetrate a phishing scheme through promotional offers. Complainant provides screenshots of the resolving webpage. The Panel agrees, and finds that Respondent is not using the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
Thus, Complainant has also satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <onlinesnapchathack.com> domain name in bad faith by attempting to attract Internet users to its competing website for commercial gain. Use of a confusingly similar domain name to attract users to a website for commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1393078 (Forum July 23, 2011) (finding that a domain name which resolves to a website which solicits Internet users for the completion of surveys is evidence of bad faith due to an attraction for commercial gain). Complainant argues that the third party advertising surveys and promotional offers on the site evidence an attempt to attract users for commercial gain. The Panel agrees with Complainant and finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Additionally, Complainant contends that Respondent uses the <onlinesnapchathack.com> domain name to engage in a phishing scheme. Use of a disputed domain name for a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Google Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1622862 (Forum Aug. 10, 2015) (finding that the respondent’s apparent use of the disputed domain name in furtherance of a ‘phishing’ scheme further established its bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). Complainant provides screenshots of the resolving webpage and contends that Respondent uses the webpage to trick users into providing sensitive personal information. As Respondent does not contest this assertion, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Finally, Complainant argues that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SNAPCHAT mark as shown through use of Complainant’s logo and information on Respondent’s own website. Actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark can be shown through Respondent’s use of that mark and Complainant’s information in connection with the domain name. See Am. Online, Inc. v. Miles, FA 105890 (Forum May 31, 2002) (“Respondent is using the domain name at issue to resolve to a website at which Complainant’s trademarks and logos are prominently displayed. Respondent has done this with full knowledge of Complainant’s business and trademarks. The Panel finds that this conduct is that which is prohibited by Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.”) Here, Complainant provides screenshots of Respondent’s website and notes that Respondent uses variations of Complainant’s logo and references Complainant’s business. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 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 <onlinesnapchathack.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David A. Einhorn, Panelist
Dated: January 24, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page