Snap Inc. v. Ranwa Prodo
Claim Number: FA2308002056736
Complainant is Snap Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Emily A. DeBow of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Ranwa Prodo (“Respondent”), Jordan.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <snapchat1.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 8, 2023; Forum received payment on August 8, 2023.
On August 9, 2023, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <snapchat1.com> 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 August 10, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 30, 2023 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@snapchat1.com. Also, on August 10, 2023, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On August 31, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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
1. Respondent’s <snapchat1.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SNAPCHAT mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <snapchat1.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <snapchat1.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent did not file a Response.
Complainant, Snap, Inc., holds registrations for the SNAPCHAT mark, including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 5,373,767, registered January 9, 2018).
Respondent registered the <snapchat1.com> domain name on February 20, 2021, and uses it to offer services related to Complainant’s SNAPCHAT App, in violation of Complainant’s Terms of Service.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in SNAPCHAT mark through registration with the USPTO. 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).”).
Respondent’s <snapchat1.com> domain name uses Complainant’s SNAPCHAT mark and simply adds a “1” and the “.com” gTLD. These changes do not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Caterpillar Inc. v. Patricia Wee, FA 2001265 (Forum July 20, 2022) (finding the addition of the term “mr, “the numbers “181” and “.com” gTLD to complainant’s CAT mark in the <mrcat181.com> domain name did not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.) Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <snapchat1.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SNAPCHAT mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests.”).
Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <snapchat1.com> domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use its SNAPCHAT mark. The WHOIS identifies “Ranwa Prodo” as the registrant of the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <snapchat1.com> domain name and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (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).
Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the <snapchat1.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or service or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent uses it to offer services related to Complainant’s SNAPCHAT App, in violation of Complainant’s Terms of Service. Using a disputed domain name to offer unauthorized services is not 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). See Instagram, LLC v. Douglas Tarry/Statigram, FA 1550202 (Forum May 7, 2014) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where respondent used the <instagramz.com> domain name to redirect Internet users seeking complainant’s website to another website purporting to sell Instagram followers, in direct violation of complainant’s Terms of Use). Complainant provides evidence showing that the disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers users the ability to buy increased scores, followers, views and other services related to the SNAPCHAT App, using Complainant’s SNAPCHAT mark and ghost logo. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <snapchat1.com> domain name in bad faith by using it in conjunction with Complainant’s ghost logo to trade off the value of Complainant’s well-known SNAPCHAT mark. Using a disputed domain name to attract Internet traffic to a site that offers unauthorized services related to a complainant’s business evinces bad faith attraction for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”); see also DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“the Panel finds the respondent is appropriating the complainant’s mark in a confusingly similar domain name for commercial gain, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)”). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant also argues Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SNAPCHAT mark, due to the fame of the mark. The Panel agrees, again noting that Respondent uses Complainant’s SNAPCHAT mark and ghost logo to offer services directly related to Complainant’s SNAPCHAT App, and finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of Complainant’s rights, demonstrating further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").
The Panel finds that Complainant has 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 <snapchat1.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: September 5, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page