DECISION

 

Snap Inc. v. ra su

Claim Number: FA2310002068713

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Snap Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Silvia A. Francis-Bongue of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is ra su ("Respondent"), Iraq.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <snapchal.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on October 30, 2023; Forum received payment on October 30, 2023.

 

On November 1, 2023, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <snapchal.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 November 2, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 22, 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@snapchal.com. Also on November 2, 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 November 25, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends as follows:

 

Complainant owns and distributes the SNAPCHAT camera and messaging application, and storytelling platform that, among other things, allows users to share photographs, videos, and messages with others via mobile devices

 

Complainant has rights in the SNAPCHAT mark through numerous United States and foreign trademark registrations registration of such mark. A number of panels found the mark to be famous.

 

Respondent's domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SNAPCHAT mark as the domain name consists of a recognizable misspelling of the mark followed by the insignificant ".com" domain name.

 

Respondent's domain name addressed a website displaying a phony login page using Complainant's logo purportedly for Snapchat App users to fix problems with their Snapchat accounts. The website falsely claimed that individual Snapchat App Users had a problem with their account and prompted them to "Sign in" through a login page that was not affiliated with Complainant. The website then later displayed the Snapcode of a Snapchat user with the username @myliefsamovie.c, which does not appear to be related to the Respondent. The content of the website was changed to show a single image and blue button stating click to allow or wait 1 minute to play video etc. This website contained the SNAPCHAT mark and the button did not function.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the at-issue domain name. There is no relationship between Complainant and Respondent and Respondent has no right to use Complainant's mark. Respondent is not known by the domain name nor has Respondent ever made a bona fide offering of goods or services using the domain name. Instead, Respondent used the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and perpetuate a phishing scheme and later used it to display little or no substantive content.

 

Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the at-issue domain name years after Complainant established rights in its famous brand. Respondent's use of the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant to facilitate a phishing scheme demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the domain name. Respondent use of the domain name to contain non-functional links suggests bad faith through inactivity. Respondent had actual knowledge of SNAPCHAT prior to registering the domain name. Respondent is typosquatting. Respondent altered the website after receiving notification by Complainant further indicating bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in the SNAPCHAT mark.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the SNAPCHAT trademark.

 

Respondent used the <snapchal.com> domain name to facilitate an phishing scheme.

 

DISCUSSION

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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant shows that it has USPTO registrations, along with other national trademark registrations, for its SNAPCHAT trademark. Any of such registrations is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in the SNAPCHAT mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sept. 4, 2018) ("Complainant has rights in the GMAIL mark based upon its registration of the mark with numerous trademark agencies around the world."); see also Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Jimmy Yau, FA 1764034 (Forum Jan. 25, 2018) ("The Panel finds that complainant has rights in BLOOMBERG mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based upon its registration with multiple trademark agencies, including the USPTO.").

 

Respondent's <snapchal.com> domain name contains a recognizable misspelled version of Complainant's SNAPCHAT trademark where the mark's letter "t" is replaced with the somewhat graphically similar letter "l" with all followed by the ".com." top level domain. The differences between the at-issue domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish one from the other for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <snapchal.com> domain name is confusingly similar to <snapchal.com>trademark. See Acme Lift Company, L.L.C. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1607039 (Forum Apr. 11, 2015) (stating, "Where a respondent has created a domain name in an effort to visually deceive Internet users via a simple misspelling (and when such misspellings are visually similar to the mark), a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is appropriate.").

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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.  See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and "Panels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name.").

 

The WHOIS information for at-issue domain name indicates that "ra su" is the domain name's registrant and there is nothing in the record that tends to prove that Respondent is known by the at-issue domain name. The Panel thus finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent used the confusingly similar <snapchal.com> domain name to direct internet traffic to a website displaying a bogus login page dressed to appear as if it were sponsored by Complainant. The page was purportedly for Snapchat App users to fix problems with their Snapchat accounts. The site falsely claimed that individual Snapchat App Users had a problem with their account and prompted them to "Sign in" through a login page that was not affiliated with Complainant. Thereby, visitors are tricked into giving up their personal and confidential information to Respondent for Respondent's underhanded benefit. Respondent's use of the confusingly similar <snapchal.com> domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. I S / Internet Consulting Services Inc., FA 1785242 (Forum June 5, 2018) ("On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either 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 also, Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Mita Irelant Ltd., FA 1314998 (Forum Apr. 30, 2010) ("The Panel finds that Respondent's attempt to "phish" for users' personal information is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).").

 

Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and demonstrates Respondent's lack of rights and lack of legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, bad faith circumstances are present which lead the Panel to conclude that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to the Policy regarding each at-issue domain name.

 

Respondent used the domain name and referenced website so that Respondent might pass itself off as Complainant and deceive internet users into falsely believing that the domain name and its related webpages and links were sponsored by Complainant. The at-issue domain name facilitated a phishing scheme ultimately aimed at deceptively extracting confidential information from <snapchal.com> website visitors who believed they were dealing with Complainant. Using <snapchal.com> in conjunction with a phishing scheme demonstrates Respondent's bad faith under the Policy. See Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) ("[T]he screenshot of the resolving webpage allows users to input their name and email address, which Complainant claims Respondent uses that to fraudulently phish for information. Thus, the Panel agrees that Respondent phishes for information and finds that Respondent does so in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).").

 

Next, Respondent engages in typosquatting. Respondent's domain contains an intentional misspelling of Complainant's trademark replacing SNAPCHAT's "t" with a graphically similar letter "l". Typosquatting, in itself, indicates bad faith registration and use of Respondent's at-issue domain name. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SNAPCHAT mark when it registered <snapchal.com> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's SNAPCHAT trademark is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's mark and from Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name to pose as Complainant to exploit such mark. Respondent's registration and use of <snapchal.com> with knowledge of Complainant's rights in SNAPCHAT further shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <snapchal.com> pursuant to the Policy. 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 had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) ("Complainant contends Respondent's appropriation of Complainant's trademark was a clear intent to trade upon Complainant's reputation and goodwill in order to confuse Internet users. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant's mark prior to registration and this constitutes bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <snapchal.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: November 26, 2023