DECISION

 

Snap Inc. v. ibrahim asif

Claim Number: FA2511002188484

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Snap Inc. ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Brianna D. Khong of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, United States. Respondent is ibrahim asif ("Respondent"), Pakistan.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <snapapk.pro>, 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.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 12, 2025; Forum received payment on November 12, 2025.

 

On November 14, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by email to Forum that the <snapapk.pro> 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 18, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 8, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@snapapk.pro. Also on November 18, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 October 9, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 owns and distributes a popular camera and messaging application and storytelling platform. The app was launched in 2011; it had 70 million daily active users by the end of 2014, and 469 million by the end of the second quarter of 2025. Complainant uses SNAP, SNAPCHAT, and related marks in connection with the app and platform, and asserts that the mark have become famous, citing several decisions under the Policy that have so found. Complainant owns trademark registrations for SNAP in standard character form in the United States and for SNAPCHAT in the United States and Pakistan, among other jurisdictions. Complainant also owns registrations for related marks, including design marks that Complainant refers to as "Ghost Logo" and "Snapchat Yellow."

 

The disputed domain name <snapapk.pro> was registered in July 2024. The name is registered to Respondent, although Respondent's identity is redacted from the public domain name registration record. The domain name is being used for a website that contains information about Complainant's app and links enabling the user to download what the website represents to be a "Premium Unlocked" version of the app. The website prominently and repeatedly displays Complainant's SNAP, SNAPCHAT, and design marks. The website also contains pay-per-click banner advertisements. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, has no relationship with Complainant, and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <snapapk.pro> is confusingly similar to its SNAP mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <snapapk.pro> incorporates Complainant's registered SNAP trademark, adding the abbreviation "APK" (Android Package Kit, a file format for mobile applications) and the ".pro" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Snap Inc. v. Amna Nadir, FA 2145608 (Forum Apr. 1, 2025) (finding <snpchatmodapk.com> confusingly similar to SNAPCHAT); Lemon Inc. v. Anas Amin, FA 2111625 (Forum Sept. 13, 2024) (finding <capcutproapk.org> confusingly similar to CAPCUT); Snap Inc. v. Ronald Linco, FA 2085096 (Forum Apr. 4, 2024) (finding <snap-down.com> confusingly similar to SNAP); Snap Inc. v. Deepika Priyadarshinie / entsl, FA 1788600 (Forum June 21, 2018) (finding <snapchatapk.com> confusingly similar to SNAPCHAT). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and its sole apparent use has been for a misleading website that attempts to pass off as Complainant, offers or purports to offer an unauthorized version of Complainant's product, and displays pay-per-click advertisements. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Snap Inc. v. Amna Nadir, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Lemon Inc. v. Anas Amin, supra (same); Snap Inc. v. Deepika Priyadarshinie / entsl, supra (same).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site 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 [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."

 

Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's registered mark, and is using the domain name for a misleading website that attempts to pass off as Complainant, offers or purports to offer an unauthorized version of Complainant's product, and displays pay-per-click advertisements. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith

registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Snap Inc. v. Amna Nadir, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Lemon Inc. v. Anas Amin, supra (same); Snap Inc. v. Deepika Priyadarshinie / entsl, supra (same). The Panel so finds.

 

DECISION

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

 

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

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: December 10, 2025