DECISION

 

Snap Inc. v. Venkat Ramarao / Shubham Meena

Claim Number: FA2501002136806

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Snap Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Silvia A. Francis-Bongue of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Venkat Ramarao / Shubham Meena ("Respondent"), India.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <fouadsnap.com> and <fmsnapmod.com>, registered with Spaceship, Inc. and Cloudflare, 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.

 

Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 24, 2025; Forum received payment on January 24, 2025.

 

On January 27, 2025, Spaceship, Inc. and Cloudflare, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <fouadsnap.com> and <fmsnapmod.com> domain names are registered with Spaceship, Inc. and Cloudflare, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Spaceship, Inc. and Cloudflare, Inc. have verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, Inc. and Cloudflare, Inc. 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 January 28, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 18, 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@fouadsnap.com, postmaster@fmsnapmod.com. Also on January 28, 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 19, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS

Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder."  In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the disputed domain names are controlled by the same person or entity which uses aliases for the purposes of registration. In particular, it submits that the domain names are under common control because they resolve, or did resolve, to websites with the same network address. Further, the evidence from the sites shows that a person, Fouad Mokdad, identifies himself as the creator of both sites and the creator of modified software based on the SNAP platform.

 

Taking these matters into account, the Panel treats the named respondents as a single person or entity for the purposes of Rule 3 and herein refers to them together as "Respondent".

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts trademark rights in SNAP.  Complainant holds national registrations for that trademark.  Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Complainant further alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith. In particular, Complainant alleges that Respondent uses the domain names to drive traffic to websites which offer unauthorized counterfeit software that competes with Complainant's own software offerings.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that:

1.       Complainant offers a camera and messaging application by reference to the trademark, SNAP;

2.       the trademark, SNAP, is registered as, inter alia, United States Patent & Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 4,345,533, registered June 4, 2013;

3.       the domain names <fouadsnap.com> and <fmsnapmod.com> were created on January 28, 2023, and January 22, 2023, respectively; and

4.       the websites to which the domain names resolve promote modified versions of Complainant's application and use the SNAP mark.

 

DISCUSSION

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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments (see, for example, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; 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

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.

 

It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)).  Complainant provides evidence of its registration of the trademark SNAP with the USPTO, a national trademark authority.

 

The disputed domain names take the trademark and add one or more of the following – the descriptive term, "mod"; a given name; initials of a full name, plus the generic top-level-domain name ("gTLD"), ".com". The gTLD can be disregarded for the purposes of comparison (see, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) and the added terms are not sufficiently distinctive to detract from the character of the trademark which remains just recognisable (see, for example, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); Lemon Inc. Saleem abbas, D2023-4066 (WIPO Nov. 13, 2023) finding addition of "mod" to the RESSO mark in the <ressomodapk.com> domain did not prevent a finding of confusing similarity; J Brand, Inc. v. Zhang Jipeng / Jipeng Zhang, FA 1483030 (Forum Mar. 7, 2013) finding addition of the male forename "Vince" to the J BRAND mark for form <vincejbrand.com> did not prevent a finding of confusing similarity).

 

The Panel accordingly finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

 

(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the  domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;  or

 

(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights;  or

 

(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000‑0624).

 

There is no suggestion that Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain names, or that Respondent has any trademark rights. The Panel accepts Complainant's assertion that Respondent has no authority to use the trademark, still less to modify its software, and so finds no evidence of rights or legitimate interest (see, for example, Instagram, LLC v. Fineline Developer, D2023-3230 (WIPO, Sept. 25, 2023) finding respondent's use of <instagramproapk.download> to offer a modified mobile application of the complainant's Instagram App, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial fair use); TikTok Ltd. v. Shoeb Alam, and Shaniyal Malik, D2023-2185(WIPO, Jul. 20, 2023) finding respondent's use of <tiktok18apk.com> to offer a modified version of the official TikTok app and reproducing the complainant's trademark and logo was not a bona fide offering of goods and services or legitimate non-commercial fair use under the Policy).

 

The onus shifts to Respondent and in the absence of a Response, Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or interests and so finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith and used in bad faith. Further guidance on that requirement is found in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, which sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established. 

 

The four specified circumstances are:

 

"(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

 

(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

 

(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

 

(iv) by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to respondent's website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the site or location."

 

The Panel finds that paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy has direct application. The Panel has already found confusingly similarity in both cases. Further, the resolving websites exist for commercial gain (see, for example, Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).")).

 

The Panel so finds that the third and final element of the Policy is satisfied.

 

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 <fouadsnap.com> and <fmsnapmod.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist

Dated: February 26, 2025