Snap Inc. v. Universe / Universe Domains
Claim Number: FA1902001830871
Complainant is Snap Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Peter Kidd of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Universe / Universe Domains (“Respondent”), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <accountsnapchat.org>, registered with eNom, 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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 21, 2019; the Forum received payment on February 21, 2019.
On February 22, 2019, eNom, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <accountsnapchat.org> domain name is registered with eNom, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eNom, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, 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 February 22, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 14, 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@accountsnapchat.org. Also on February 22, 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. Respondent did however sent e-mails to the Forum, see below.
On March 17, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it owns and distributes the enormously popular Snapchat camera and messaging application, and storytelling platform that, among other things, allows users to share photographs, videos, and messages called “Snaps” with others via mobile devices. Since its launch in 2011, the Snapchat App has been one of the fastest growing and most popular smartphone applications in the world. By February 2017, the Snapchat App had an estimated 79% market share among teenagers and young adults in the United States, giving it the highest reach of social media and networking sites, surpassing Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. As of September 2017, the Snapchat App had more than 178 million daily active users globally, a 250% increase since 2014, who on average sent an estimated 3.5 billion Snaps every day. By the end of 2017, the number of daily active users of the Snapchat App increased 8.9 million or 5% sequentially to 187 million. At the end of 2017, Apple reported that the Snapchat App was the second most-downloaded app in its App Store, second only to Snap’s Bitmoji mobile application which is integrated with the Snapchat Application. In the first quarter of 2018, the number of daily active users of the Snapchat App increased to 191 million. Complainant has rights in the SNAPCHAT mark through its registration of the mark in the United States in 2013.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar its Complainant’s mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic/descriptive word “account” along with the “.org” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the domain name in connection with a purported pet grooming company. Alternatively, Respondent uses the domain name to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Additionally, Respondent, given the minimal use of the resolving webpage associated with the domain name, is simply passively holding the domain name. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the domain name to divert internet traffic to Respondent’s website for financial gain. Alternatively, Respondent merely passively holds the domain name. Further, Respondent likely uses the domain name to phish for Internet users’ information. Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SNAPCHAT mark when it registered the domain name given the longstanding worldwide fame and notoriety associated with the mark along with Respondent’s use of the word “account” in the domain name. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. In its e-mails to the Forum Respondent states, in pertinent part: “Thanks for bringing this to my attention. We will remove the offending site.” And: “We've taken this site down at your request.”
Complainant has rights in the mark SNAPCHAT dating back to 2013 and uses the mark to promote a smartphone application.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2018.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
Respondent is used the disputed domain names to resolve to a web site that contained links to unrelated services.
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.”).
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic/descriptive word “account” along with the “.org” gTLD. Past panels have found that similar changes have failed to sufficiently distinguish a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists 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). The Panel therefore finds that the <accountsnapchat.org> domain name is confusingly similar to the SNAPCHAT mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: absent a response, WHOIS information can support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent’s use of the same); see also Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sep. 4, 2018) (concluding that Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where “the WHOIS of record identifies the Respondent as “Bhawana Chandel,” and no information in the record shows that Respondent was authorized to use Complainant’s mark in any way.”). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies “Universe / Universe Domains” as the registrant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Respondent uses the domain name in connection with a purported and unrelated pet grooming company. Specifically, Complainant provides a screenshot of the resolving webpage, which displays the words “CTE PET GROOMING” along with a link for email, Twitter, and Instagram. Using a confusingly similar domain name to promote services unrelated to a complainant can evince a lack of rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and/or (iii). See Spike's Holding, LLC v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1736008 (Forum July 21, 2017) (“The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s unrelated use of the <finishnline.com> domain name evinces a lack of rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).”). As such, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the domain name to promote unrelated services fails to amount to any bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent used the disputed domain name to promote unrelated services, that is, it diverted internet traffic to Respondent’s website for financial gain. Using a disputed domain name to trade upon the goodwill of a complainant’s mark for commercial gain can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question is obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain); see also Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Forum June 11, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s previous use of the <bankofamericanfork.com> domain name to maintain a web directory was evidence of bad faith because the respondent presumably commercially benefited by receiving click-through fees for diverting Internet users to unrelated third-party websites). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent attempted to commercially benefit off Complainant’s mark in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <accountsnapchat.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: March 17, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page