DECISION
Snap Inc. v. John Clinton
Claim Number: FA2501002136481
PARTIES
Complainant is Snap Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Ginger Mimier of KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is John Clinton ("Respondent"), Virginia, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <snapfuck.app>, 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.
James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 22, 2025; Forum received payment on January 22, 2025.
On January 23, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <snapfuck.app> 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 January 24, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 13, 2025, 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@snapfuck.app. Also on January 24, 2025, 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 February 14, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant claims rights in the SNAP trademark based on its ownership of the portfolio of trademark registrations described below and furthermore its use, registration, and ownership of the SNAPCHAT mark, the SNAP mark and various other marks incorporating the term SNAP.
Complainant submits that it has an extensive goodwill and reputation using the SNAPCHAT mark on its social media application, as well as the <snapchat.com> and <snap.com> domain names and corresponding websites and services.
Complainant submits that it has an extensive goodwill in the SNAPCHAT mark, and states that from December 2015 to December 2016, there was a 48% increase in Snapchat App users rising to 158 million daily active users. On average users visited the Snapchat App more than 18 times daily, spent an average of 25-30 minutes on the app, and sent over 2.5 billion Snaps.
Firstly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SNAP and SNAPCHAT marks in which Complainant has rights arguing that the disputed domain name includes the entirety of the SNAP mark and the dominant portion of the SNAPCHAT mark.
Complainant adds that numerous courts and prior panels established under the Policy have recognized that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety (as in the case with Respondent's incorporation of the SNAP mark), or the dominant portion of a trademark (as in the case with SNAPCHAT and other SNAP-formative marks) may be sufficient to establish that a domain name at issue is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant's registered mark. See, e.g., Snap, Inc. v. Peter Vagin / Chubbs Media, FA1805001788597 (Forum June 28, 2018) (finding the domain <snapfuck.me> confusingly similar to the SNAPCHAT mark because it contained the dominant portion of the SNAPCHAT mark).
Additionally, Complainant argues that it is similarly well-settled that the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.net> may be ignored as it does not distinguish the disputed domain name. See Blue Sky Software Corp. v. Digital Sierra Inc., WIPO Case D2000-0165 (WIPO Apr. 27, 2000) (holding that the domain name ROBOHELP.COM is identical to complainant's registered ROBOHELP trademark, and that the "addition of .com is not a distinguishing difference").
Secondly, Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for the following reasons:
· Respondent has no right to own or use any domain name incorporating Complainant's SNAP marks;
· there is no relationship between Complainant and Respondent;
· nothing in the WhoIs information for the disputed domain name nor otherwise in the record, suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name;
· rather, Respondent refers to themselves as John Clinton as shown in the disclosed WhoIs information for the disputed domain name;
· where, as here, nothing in the record or WhoIs information shows that a respondent is commonly known by a domain name at issue, panels have found that such respondents lack rights or legitimate interests in the domain. See, e.g., Snap Inc. v. Ahmad Flemming, FA1809001809794 (Forum Nov. 8, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where nothing in the WhoIs record indicated the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name);
· in this regard, Complainant further refers to the decision of the panel in Snap Inc. v. Rokib Hasan, FA2212002024988 (Forum Jan. 19, 2023) ("using a domain name to redirect users to a page hosting adult-oriented content is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any noncommercial or fair use.");
· Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name to resolve to an adult-oriented website, which is neither legitimate nor fair purpose.
Complainant next alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith arguing Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SNAP and SNAPCHAT marks.
Complainant submits that it first made use of the SNAPCHAT mark in September 2011, and subsequently the SNAP and SNAPCHAT marks have been widely recognized and relied upon by online consumers throughout the world.
Upon information and belief, Respondent did not register the Infringing Domain Name until on or around June 11, 2024, long after Complainant's SNAP and SNAPCHAT marks became recognized and well-known.
Given the notoriety of the SNAP and SNAPCHAT marks, it is clear that Respondent did not register the disputed domain name for any legitimate or fair use purpose. Rather, Respondent registered the disputed domain name to resolve to an adult-oriented website.
Further, Respondent's references to Complainant and the SNAPCHAT platform and use of a color similar to "Snapchat Yellow" on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves demonstrate that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SNAP and SNAPCHAT marks prior to registration and use of the disputed domain name. See, e.g., Snap Inc. v. Daisy Ducharme / baby & belly photography, FA1911001872261 (Forum Dec. 28, 2019) (finding Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SNAPCHAT and SNAP marks based on Respondent's use of Complainant's logos, marks, and color scheme on its webpage).
Complainant adds that the abovementioned exhibited screen capture of the websites to which the disputed domain name has and presently resolves, illustrate that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to an adult-oriented website, which is further evidence of bad faith. See, e.g., Snap Inc. v. David Miller, FA2403002088712 (Forum Apr. 24, 2024) (finding use of a domain name containing a trademark for a website hosting adult material is evidence of bad faith registration and use under the Policy).
Furthermore, Respondent has used a privacy service to register the disputed domain name; and use of a privacy service suggests bad faith registration and may be used as supportive evidence for a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See, e.g., Bilfinger SE v. Ilo Chidera / Maxtyga Services, FA2202001985721 (Forum Mar. 23, 2022) (finding the WHOIS information for the <bilfingerinvestment.com> domain identifying the respondent as "Redacted for Privacy" was evidence of bad faith registration and use).
The abovementioned exhibited screen captures of the website to which the disputed domain name resolved on September 6, 2024, had numerous references to "snapchat" whereas the website to which the disputed domain name resolved on January 22, 2025 had deleted references to "snapchat". Such changes made to Respondent's website after receiving correspondence from Complainant's representatives do not negate a finding of bad faith. See Logistics Plus, Inc. v. Jay Silverman, FA2007001903358 (Forum Aug. 18, 2020) ("Moreover, the Panel finds that Respondent's altered use of the disputed domain name to sell products related to its business, which occurred only after contact with Complainant, was a bad faith ruse concocted by Respondent to escape liability under an eventual filing by Complainant under the Policy.").
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant owns and administers the SNAPCHAT camera and messaging application on which it uses SNAPCHAT trademark.
Complainant holds an international portfolio of registered trademarks for the SNAP and SNAPCHAT marks, and other marks that incorporate the word SNAP, including the following registrations:
· United States registered trademark and service mark SNAP, registration number 4,345,533, registered on the Principal Register on June 4, 2013, for goods and services in international classes 9, 38, 41, 42, and 45;
· United States registered trademark SNAPCHAT, registration number 4,375,712, registered on July 30, 2013 the Principal Register for goods in international class 9;
· European Union registered trademark SNAPCHAT, registration number 013632369, registered on February 2, 2016, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 42;
· Canadian registered trademark SNAPCHAT, registration number TMA954,928 registered on November 10, 2016, for goods in international class 9.
Complainant has an established Internet presence and owns the domain names <snapchat.com> and <snap.com> which are used as the addresses of Complainant's websites.
The disputed domain name <snapfuck.app> was registered on June 11, 2024, and resolves to a website offering adult entertainment services.
The disputed domain name was registered availing of a privacy service to conceal the identity of the registrant. In response to a request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purposes of this proceeding, the Register disclosed that Respondent is the registrant.
There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint, as amended, the Registrar's WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purposes of this proceeding.
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
Complainant has provided uncontested evidence to prove that it has rights in the SNAP and SNAPCHAT trademarks, and other marks incorporating the SNAP mark as an element. Such rights are established by its ownership of its portfolio of trademark registrations described above.
The disputed domain name <snapfuck.app> consists only of Complainant's mark in its entirety, in combination with the element "fuck", and the gTLD extension <.com>.
The disputed domain name contains Complainant's SNAP mark in its entirety and a distinctive element of the SNAPCHAT mark.
It is well established that once a domain name at issue contains a complainant's mark in its entirety the complainant succeeds in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, Complainant has established that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SNAP mark.
Taking into account that SNAPCHAT is a very well known mark, consisting of the element "snap" and another element, the additional element "fuck" within the disputed domain name adds no distinguishing character, and allows this Panel to find that the disputed domain name is also confusingly similar to the SNAPCHAT mark.
It is well established that for the purposes of comparing a domain name at issue with a trademark relied upon by a complainant, the gTLD extension <.app> within the domain name, may generally be ignored as it would be considered by Internet users as a necessary technical requirement for a domain name.
This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is identical to the SNAP and SNAPCHAT trademarks in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has made out an uncontested prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests.
Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Complainant has adduced uncontested evidence that it has owned and used the SNAP AND SNAPCHAT mark since at least September 2011, whereas the confusingly similar disputed domain name was not created until June 11, 2024.
The uncontested assertion is that Complainant has developed an extensive market in its SNAPCHAT mark in particular, and has a worldwide reputation, goodwill and market.
SNAP AND SNAPCHAT are distinctive marks, and the SNAPCHAT app has acquired a global reputation. It is implausible that the registrant of the disputed domain name was not aware of Complainant, its SNAPCHAT mark when the disputed domain name was chosen and registered.
This Panel finds therefore that on the balance of probabilities, the disputed domain name was chosen and registered in bad faith to target and take predatory advantage of Complainant' goodwill in the SNAP and SNAPCHAT marks.
The evidence shows that Respondent is using the disputed domain name as the address of a website offering adult entertainment services. On September 6, 2024, the content of the website purported to offer "a unique combination of anonymity and excitement letting you explore potential Snapchat hookups in your area without the hassle of hackneyed dating apps". (Emphasis added by the Panel).
Following a cease-and-desist letter from Complainant, on January 22, 2025, the content of Respondent's website had been amended to offer "a unique combination of anonymity and excitement letting you explore potential Snapchat hookups in your area without the hassle of hackneyed dating apps".
The use of the phrase "Snapchat hookups" on September 6, 2024, reveals Respondent's intention to take predatory advantage of the SNAP and SNAPCHAT marks within the disputed domain name and the website to which it resolves, to attract Internet traffic intended for Complainant.
Such intentional unauthorized use of the disputed domain name attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's web site, constitutes use of the disputed domain name in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.
If, there is any doubt that Respondent is purporting to create an inference that the disputed domain name is sponsored, affiliated or otherwise associated with Complainant, because of the composition of the disputed domain name, and specifically the inference within the second element that it is an adult entertainment website, the evidence adduced, allows this Panel to find that that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith to create initial interest confusion. Such initial interest confusion in the circumstances of this case constitutes use in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.
As this Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, Complainant has therefore succeeded in the third element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
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 <snapfuck.app> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
___________________________________________
James Bridgeman SC
Panelist
Dated: February 16, 2025
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page