DECISION
Snap Inc. v. Host Master / 1337 Services LLC / Jacob Moore
Claim Number: FA2408002109737
PARTIES
Complainant is Snap Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Brianna D. Khong of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Host Master / 1337 Services LLC / Jacob Moore ("Respondent"), Saint Kitts and Nevis.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <snapripper.xyz> and <snapripper.net>, registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and NameSilo, LLC.
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.
The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 5, 2024; Forum received payment on August 5, 2024.
On Aug 05, 2024 and Aug 06, 2024, Tucows Domains Inc. and NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <snapripper.xyz> and <snapripper.net> domain names are registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Tucows Domains Inc. and NameSilo, LLC have verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains Inc. and NameSilo, LLC registration agreements 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 12, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 3, 2024 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@snapripper.xyz and postmaster@snapripper.net. Also on August 12, 2024, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On September 4, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC 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 formal response from Respondent. However, the Panel will take into account the contents of an email received from the Respondent.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
In the instant proceeding there are two separately named Respondents and two Registrars. However, there are also series of facts that show that the two named respondents are the same person and that they are therefore " the same domain name holder" within the meaning of Rule 3(c). Those facts are that:
1. the two domain names resolve or had resolved to websites with the same network address and name server, as shown in Annex A to the Complaint;
2. the domain name <snapripper.net> currently redirects to <snapripper.xyz>, as shown in Annex U;
3. the domain name <snapripper.net> previously resolved to a website with content identical to the content to which the domain name <snapripper.xyz> currently resolves. Annex V;
4. the disputed domain names both use the term "snapripper" in the domain name, each of which incorporates the entirety of the SNAP mark plus the non-distinctive term "ripper."
These facts cannot have been a series of unlikely coincidences and it is apparent that the same hand has been behind the registration and use of the two domain names making them "the same domain name holder" within the meaning of Rule 3(c).
Indeed, if there were any doubt about it, Forum has received an email from a person in response to that person receiving the Written Notice of Complaint, so that it is obvious that the writer was aware that the proceeding concerns both domain names and that it is writing with respect to both of them. The email makes a series of statements such as:
"The website Snapripper.xyz (and also Snapripper.net)...", "I was using a word "Snap" in my domain names" , " i will not renew these domains nor use them anymore" and "... the domain names."
It is obvious from these references that the two domain names are the work of one person who must be "the same domain name holder" within the meaning of Rule 3(c).
The Complaint therefore complies with Rule 3(c) and has been validly instituted.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant made the following contentions.
1. The Complainant is a United States company that owns and provides the Snapchat business including its renowned and popular Snapchat mobile application and complementary good and services.
2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under the trademark for SNAPCHAT. In particular, the evidence will establish that the Complainant has acquired registered trademark rights in the SNAPCHAT trademark by virtue of the registration of that trademark by Snapchat, Inc., an associated company of the Complainant, with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, registration Number 4933187, registered on April 5, 2016 and other national and international trademarks for SNAPCHAT and derivatives (collectively "the SNAPCHAT trademark"). The Complainant has used that trademark since 2011 and continuously since its registration to offer its goods and services.
3. The SNAPCHAT trademark has attracted substantial goodwill and is uniquely associated with the Complainant's goods and services.
4. As well as its trademark, Complainant registered the domain name <snapchat.com> on November 8, 1994 that it uses in its business and in particular for its website at www.snapchat.com where it markets its products under the SNAPCHAT trademark and brand.
5. The Respondent registered the <snapripper.xyz> domain name on December 12, 2023, and the <snapripper.net> domain name on April 14, 2023, (respectively "the disputed domain names").
6. The disputed domain names embody, without the consent of the Complainant, the dominant portion of the SNAPCHAT trademark, namely "SNAP", with the addition in each case of the word "ripper", in the case of the <snapripper.xyz> domain name the generic Top Level Domain ".xyz" and in the case of the <snapripper.net> domain name the generic Top Level Domain ".net".
7. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the SNAPCHAT trademark as they include the dominant portion of the trademark, the generic word "ripper" and the aforesaid TLDs, which cannot negate a finding that a domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark.
8. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. That is so because:
(a) the disputed domain names resolve to the "SnapRipper Monitoring App" which purports to provide software that allegedly has the ability to "recover access to (a) lost or hacked Snapchat account, regardless of the reason for your lock out";
(b) the Complainant has never given any licence, permission or authority to the Respondent to use the SNAPCHAT trademark or any similar mark and there has never been any affiliation or relation between the Complainant and the Respondent; so it cannot be said that any of these nefarious activities have come about with any sort of approval by the Complainant;
(c) the Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii);
(d) the Respondent has not used the domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i);
(e) the Respondent has not used the domain names for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii);
(f) the Respondent is using the disputed domain names to drive internet traffic to the offending website and consequent links for advertising offers for the Respondent's financial gain;
(g) the Respondent is using the disputed domain names to perpetrate a phishing scheme; and
(h) there is no other ground on which it could be conceivably shown that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names.
9. The Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith. That is so because:
(a) the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant, its aforesaid business and its SNAPCHAT trademark at the time it registered the domain names;
(b) the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain names to facilitate the unlawful access to and manipulation of the Complainant's servers to compete with the Complainant and the provision of its services and to disrupt the Complainant's business within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii);
(c) the Respondent has registered and has used the disputed domain names to divert internet traffic for the Respondent's financial gain by means of generating advertising revenue vis-a-vis a purported hacking tool that requires users to complete advertising surveys;
(d) the Respondent is perpetrating a phishing scheme;
(e) the Respondent has used a privacy service in the registration of the domain names; and
(f) the Respondent is a serial UDRP offender.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding.
However, on August, 15, 2024, Forum received an email from Respondent stating:
Dear & respective everyone who is reading this,
First of all, I am so amazed that a website like this one, which is like a drop in the ocean compared to Snapchat's app popularity, attracted so much attention and hike from your side.
The website Snapripper.xyz (and also Snapripper.net) is literally not advertised anywhere and it's almost like a dead project. It barely earns few dollars a month from these surveys and ads which are locking it's fake-promised & non-working Snapchat hack app.
As a creator of this, I am also amazed of a dumb audience who can trust to these kind of websites and apps such a "Snapripper" is that it can even work. There is no such a simple hacking app which can do something like this.
But for some reason, they still exist somewhere.
But hey, the website like this is infringing your rights! Like it's going to overtake your traffic of something, website like Snapripper?
Why you dedicate so much energy into this?
I've got like 8 emails from all of you with all kind of attachments, proofs and such stuff like I'm being accused for a multi-million dollar theft of something.
On the website at its footer, there was always a Disclaimer saying: "SnapRipper's app and website is not owned or endorsed with Snap Inc. in any way."
https://web.archive.org/web/20240305065422/https://snapripper.xyz/
Yes, legally, you are right - I was using a word "Snap" in my domain names. But I am amazed how this is worrying you so much.
If I am a CEO of Snapchat, I wouldn't give a f*ck about stupid websites like these. On the other hand, they even boost popularity at the end.
The more people talk about it, even bad or nicely, popularity is higher!
But OK. If you that's worrying you so much, I decided to shut down the website and i will not renew these domains nor use them anymore. In the future, I will make sure I am not using your magnificent mighty words "SNAP" nor "SNAPCHAT" in the domain names.
So, to save your company $2000 (If i remember correctly) to pay for making a complaint against me at the forums, you don't have to do it.
I already shut down the website and I'm not returning it back.
Now I hope you can live in peace with yourself again.
Have a great day!
The Panel will consider that email and take its contents into account when making its decision.
FINDINGS
1. The Complainant is a United States company that owns and distributes the Snapchat business including its renowned and popular Snapchat mobile application and complementary goods and services.
2. The evidence has established that the Complainant has acquired registered trademark rights in the SNAPCHAT trademark by virtue of its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, registration Number 4933187, registered on April 5, 2016 and other national and international trademarks for SNAPCHAT and derivatives (collectively "the SNAPCHAT trademark").
3. The Respondent registered the <snapripper.xyz> domain name on December 12, 2023, and the <snapripper.net> on April 14, 2023, (respectively "the disputed domain names").
4. The disputed domain names include the dominant portion of the SNAPCHAT trademark, namely "SNAP" and the word "ripper" which invokes the notion of ripping or hacking to retrieve a password to a Snapchat service.
5. The Respondent has caused the disputed domain names to resolve to the SnapRipper Monitoring App website which falsely purports to enable users to recover access to lost or hacked Snapchat accounts and solicits the completion of advertising surveys.
6. By reason of the matters aforesaid and as demonstrated by the evidence, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the SNAPCHAT trademark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names and the domain names have been registered and used by the Respondent in bad faith.
7. Accordingly, the disputed domain names should be transferred to the Complainant.
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.
As already noted, the Respondent has not filed a formal Response but has sent an email to Forum in which it makes several admissions and concessions and which the Panel will consider. The Panel will of course also have regard to 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.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
The first question that arises is whether the Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely. The evidence has established that the Complainant has acquired registered trademark rights in the SNAPCHAT trademark by virtue of the registration of that trademark by Snapchat, Inc., an associated company of the Complainant, with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, registration Number 4933187, registered on April 5, 2016 and other national and international trademarks for SNAPCHAT and derivatives (collectively "the SNAPCHAT trademark"). The evidence is also that the Complainant has used that trademark since 2011 and continuously since its registration to offer its goods and services.
The Complainant has thus established its trademark rights and hence its standing to bring this proceeding.
The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's SNAPCHAT trademark. The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the SNAPCHAT trademark for the following reasons. The disputed domain names embody, without the consent of the Complainant, the dominant portion of the trademark, namely SNAP, which is itself one of the Complainant's family of marks and by which it is popularly known, as well as Snapchat. There is therefore no doubt that internet users would see the domain names as invoking the Complainant, the SNAPCHAT trademark and the goods and services provided under it. The domain names have also had included the word "ripper" and, used in this context and seen by the cognoscenti who would be likely to use them, they would be taken to have invoked the Complainant, its Snapchat business and trade marks and the process of ripping or hacking to retrieve a password to a Snapchat service. The addition of the two Top Level Domains is ignored in the interpretation of a domain name and cannot negate a finding of confusing similarity between a domain name and a trademark, as all domain names require such an extension. Internet users would thus see the domain names as similar to the trademark and confusingly so, the confusion being that they raise a question mark as to whether they are official and genuine domain names of the Complainant or not.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's SNAPCHAT trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
It is now well established that the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and that, if the prima facie case is made out, the burden then shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have such 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)).
The Panel finds on the evidence that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations, taken in the order in which they are raised by the Complainant. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because:
(a) the evidence adduced by the Complainant shows that the Respondent claims that the domain names can be used to retrieve a lost password and give access to a Snapchat account by ripping or hacking; thus, the Respondent has used the domain names to perform an unlawful act and it cannot be said that a right or interest in the domain names can be created on the basis of an illegality;
(b) however, the evidence also shows that no such password hacking tool as the Respondent claims to be able to provide actually exists; thus not only is the Respondent proposing to internet users that they should avail themselves of an illegal process, but the Respondent cannot produce the instrument that would carry out the illegality because it does not exist;
(c) it follows that the real reason for creating and using the domain names and having them resolve to a website, must be to lure internet users into completing certain advertising surveys that have been devised to generate advertising and/or affiliate revenue for the Respondent; none of this deceptive process can give rise to a right or legitimate interest in the very domain names used to perpetrate the deception and the proposed unlawful conduct;
(d) the Complainant has never given any licence, permission or authority to the Respondent to use the SNAPCHAT trademark or any similar mark and there has never been any affiliation or relation between the Complainant and the Respondent; so it cannot be said that any of these nefarious activities have come about with any sort of approval or complicity by the Complainant;
(e) the Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii); there is no evidence that it is so known and highly unlikely that it is; the Respondent is more likely to be known as 1337 Services LLC / Jacob Moore, as they, apparently, are its names;
(f) the Respondent has not used the domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i); there is nothing bona fide in the Respondent helping itself to the Complainant's prominent trademark without permission and then using it to create a deceptive and dishonest scheme to hack into the Complainant's servers and also generate advertising surveys, all under the imprimatur of the Complainant which has not been given; the conduct of the Respondent proved by the Complainant is more mala fide than bona fide;
(g) the Respondent has not used the domain names for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii); there is nothing legitimate in the Respondent's conduct; nor is it noncommercial, as it is obviously being done for money (and even the Respondent concedes in its email that money has in fact been paid); nor is it fair, either to the Complainant or to internet users who are aficianados of Snapchat and generally;
(h) the Respondent is using the disputed domain names to drive internet traffic to the offending website and the consequent links for advertising offers for the Respondent's financial gain; this has already been noted but deserves to be repeated, as it shows the machinations of the Respondent in taking the trademark, creating two confusingly similar domain names, and causing them to be used for an illegal purpose and to make money;
(i) the Respondent is using the disputed domain names to perpetrate a phishing scheme; obviously the Respondent is trying to extract information as is seen from Complainant's Annex U which invites internet users to subscribe to the Respondent's service; and
(j) there is no other ground on which it could be conceivably shown that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names; no other ground has emerged and it is hard to see how there could be any; indeed, the Complainant has covered the field and has shown convincingly that that there is no possible ground for the Respondent to have a right or legitimate interest in the domain names.
To consider the Respondent's email set out above, this makes clear admissions that it "…earns few dollars a month from these surveys and ads which are locking it's fake-promised & non-working Snapchat hack app.", that only "a dumb audience" would believe the website, that "Yes, legally, you are right - I was using a word "Snap" in my domain names", and other blandishments that " Yes, legally, you are right - I was using a word "Snap" in my domain names", and the parting gesture "Have a great day!" .
It would be difficult to find a more obliging respondent in conceding that because of its own brazen conduct, it does not have any right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names.
All of these matters make out the prima facie case against the Respondent.
The Respondent has provided only the email referred to above and the Panel therefore finds that it has not rebutted the prima facie case against it, but that it agrees with and that it therefore does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names.
The Complainant has thus made out the second of the three elements that it must establish.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, the Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in the Policy ¶ 4(b) are not exclusive but that domain name proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
The Complainant has submitted that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith on several grounds. In view of the evidence discussed above, it is clear that the Complainant has made out all of the grounds relied on, as the Respondent has clearly been motivated by bad faith in the registration and use of the domain names and in particular in the deception of the public in which the Respondent has been engaged. In particular, it is clear from the evidence that, as the Complainant has submitted:
(a) the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant, its aforesaid business and its SNAPCHAT trademark at the time it registered the domain names; it must have had that knowledge as it could not otherwise have embarked on this discreditable exercise as the word "SNAP" was pivotal to it; the Respondent knew of the Complainant and its trademarks and set about targeting it because of that knowledge;
(b) the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain names to facilitate the unlawful access to and manipulation of the Complainant's servers to compete with the Complainant and the provision of its services and to disrupt the Complainant's business within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii); this has clearly been proved as well as having been admitted and it must have been disruptive of the Complainant's business;
(c) the Respondent has registered and has used the disputed domain names to divert internet traffic for the Respondent's financial gain by means of generating advertising revenue vis-a-vis a purported hacking tool that requires users to complete advertising surveys; this has already been established by the evidence;
(d) the Respondent is perpetrating a phishing scheme; clearly the Respondent was phishing for information, a common feature of deceptive websites;
(e) the Respondent has used a privacy service in the registration of the domain names; and
(f) the Respondent is a serial UDRP offender, as it has shown a remarkable propensity to lose all 134 domain name cases in which it has been involved, now 135.
Finally, in addition to the specific provisions of the Policy and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that, in view of the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain names using the SNAPCHAT trademark and in view of the conduct of the Respondent, as shown by all of the available evidence, the Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
The Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish.
The Complainant has also correctly cited numerous prior UDRP decisions that support all of its contentions.
The Complainant has therefore established all of the elements that it must show under the Policy and it is entitled to the relief it seeks.
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 <snapripper.xyz> and <snapripper.net> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC, Panelist
Dated: September 5, 2024
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page