DECISION

 

Snap Inc. v. Silk er / Anton Nita

Claim Number: FA2504002148704

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Snap Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Silvia A. Francis-Bongue of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Silk er / Anton Nita ("Respondent"), Multiple Locations.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <snaptroid.vip>, <snaptroid.co> and <snaptroid.org>, 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.

 

Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 3, 2025; Forum received payment on April 3, 2025.

 

On April 4, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <snaptroid.vip>, <snaptroid.co> and <snaptroid.org> domain names are registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 April 7, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 28, 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@snaptroid.vip, postmaster@snaptroid.co, postmaster@snaptroid.org. Also on April 7, 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 April 29, 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 all contain "snaptroid"; they have the same registrar and privacy protection service; the domain names <snaptroid.vip> and <snaptroid.co> use the same network address; and they resolve to online locations which are similar in appearance and functionality.

 

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 and a constellation of other marks which include the element "SNAP".  Complainant holds a national registration for SNAP.

 

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.

 

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 name <snaptroid.vip> was registered on February 5, 2024, <snaptroid.co> registered on September 3, 2024, and <snaptroid.org> registered on January 21, 2025;

4.       the websites to which the domain names <snaptroid.vip> and <snaptroid.co> resolve promote hacking tools for viewing SNAP users' private content; and

5.       the website resolving from the domain name <snaptroid.org> directs users to download third party apps and complete commercial offers and advertising surveys.

 

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 the term, "troid", and one or another generic top-level-domain name ("gTLDs"). Those gTLDs can be disregarded for the purposes of comparison (see, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000). The added term, "troid", has no dictionary meaning but alludes to, "-oid", a known suffix indicating a similarity to the word it's appended to, often suggesting an incomplete or imperfect resemblance. The result is that SNAPTROID has the suggestion of something similar to, or resembling, SNAP, and the Panel finds the domain name confusing similar to the trademark (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.").

 

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. The use of the domain names as described above is clearly not a bona fide offering of goods or services  and so the Panel finds no evidence of rights or legitimate interest. A prima facie case has been made (see, for example, Snap Inc. v. Host Master / 1337 Services LLC / Jacob Moore, FA2408002109737 (Forum, Sept. 5, 2024) finding use of <snapripper.xyz> and <snapripper.net> to promote an online hacking tool to access and manipulate data on Complainant's servers unlawfully was not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a non-commercial or fair use).

 

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.  

 

However, in this case, the Panel need not consider paragraph 4(b) since it finds ample evidence of registration in bad faith and use in bad faith. The use to which the names have been put either directly or indirectly points to an awareness of Complainant and its trademark at the time the names were created. The Panel finds registration in bad faith.

 

Further, the use in each case is manifestly in bad faith (see, for example, in respect of <snaptroid.vip> and <snaptroid.co>, Snap Inc. v. Wissam Boumjahed / Jen K, FA1908001858542 (Forum Sept. 21, 2019) finding bad faith where <snaphack.club> and <snapworld.xyz> resolved to a website that promoted a hacking tool; and in respect of <snaptroid.org>, Snap, Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA1707001741287 (Forum Aug. 17, 2017) finding bad faith where the respondent required website users to complete surveys for gain in some form).

 

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 <snaptroid.vip>, <snaptroid.co> and <snaptroid.org> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist

Dated: April 30, 2025