Snap Inc. v. Amr Atef
Claim Number: FA1903001833269
Complainant is Snap Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Dennis L. Wilson of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Amr Atef (“Respondent”), Egypt.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <snapchatey.com> (‘the Domain Name’), registered with NameSilo, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 8, 2019; the Forum received payment on March 8, 2019.
On March 11, 2019, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <snapchatey.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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 March 12, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 1, 2019 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@snapchatey.com. Also on March 12, 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 April 2, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:
The Complainant owns the SNAPCHAT trademark and a trademark for its ghost logo that are both registered, inter alia, in the USA since 2013 for computer related services. The SNAPCHAT mark is well known. The Complainant owns snapchat.com.
The Domain Name registered in 2017 has been pointed to a site using a misspelling of the Complainant’s SNAPCHAT mark and a similar ghost logo which contains pay per click links to third party advertisers.
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark containing it in its entirety adding only the letters ‘ey’ and the generic top-level-domain (“gTLD”) “.com” which do not prevent said confusing similarity.
The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use the Complainant’s mark. Using a Complainant’s mark to drive traffic to a commercial site not connected with the Complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial fair use. It is bad faith registration and use.
Use of the Complainant’s ghost logo trademark shows the Respondent is aware of the Complainant and its business.
In response to a cease and desist letter from the Complainant the Respondent offered to sell the Domain Name to the Complainant for $US 10,000 which is further evidence of lack of rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name and registration and use in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant owns the SNAPCHAT trademark and a trademark for its ghost logo both registered, inter alia, in the USA since 2013 for computer related services. The SNAPCHAT mark is well known. It owns snapchat.com.
The Domain Name registered in 2017 has been used for a commercial site offering products unconnected with the Complainant, but using the Complainant’s logo. The Domain Name has been offered for sale to the Complainant for US $10,000.
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.”).
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s SNAPCHAT mark (registered around the world, inter alia, in the USA for computer related services with first use recorded as 2012), the letters ‘ey’ and the gTLD.com.
Panels have found that adding letters to the registered mark does not distinguish a domain name from that mark. See Bittrex, Inc. v. Sergey Valerievich Kireev / Kireev, FA 1784651 (Forum June 5, 2018) (holding that the domain name consists of the BITTREX mark and adds “the letters ‘btc’ and the gTLD .com which do not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant’s mark.”).
The gTLD “.com” does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the SNAPCHAT mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. See Red Hat Inc. v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purpose to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorized the use of its mark. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sep. 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).
The Respondent has used the site attached to the Domain Name for links offering products not connected with the Complainant, but using a sign including the Complainant’s name and a similar logo. The Panel finds this use is confusing. As such, it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See ALPITOUR SpA v. Albloushi, FA 888651 (Forum Feb. 26, 2007) (rejecting the Respondent's contentions of rights and legitimate interests because the respondent was merely using the domain name to operate a web site containing links to various competing commercial web sites which the panel did not find to be bona fide use in relation to goods and service under the Policy.)
Respondent offered to sell the domain name to Complainant for an amount in excess of out-of-pocket expenses. Offering a confusingly similar domain name for sale can evince a lack of rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See 3M Company v. Kabir S Rawat, FA 1725052 (Forum May 9, 2017) (holding that “offer for sale… provides additional evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests” in a disputed domain name).
As such, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Respondent's use of the site connected to the Domain Name is commercial and he is using it to profit from linking to third party web sites in a confusing manner. The use of a similar logo to the Complainant shows that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant and its business. The Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to his websites by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Dovetail Ventures LLC v. Klayton Thorpe, FA 1506001625786 (Forum Aug. 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent had acted in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where it used the disputed domain name to host a variety of hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant’s business through which the Respondent presumably gained).
Further, it has been held that such use is disruptive under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) of the Policy. See Adriana Inc. v. Moniker Privacy services, FA 1503001610020 (Forum May 1, 2015) (Using pay per click links redirecting users to competing web sites to disrupt and compete with a Complainant’s business is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)).
The Domain Name has been offered to sale in bad faith contrary to Policy 4(b)(i). See DIRECTTV, LLC v. michal restl c/o Dynadot, FA 1788826 (Forum July 5, 2018).
As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <snapchatey.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: April 2, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page