DECISION

 

Snap Inc. v. Waseem Jalal

Claim Number: FA2511002188751

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Snap Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Dennis L. Wilson of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Waseem Jalal ("Respondent"), Saudi Arabia.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <snapchatmodapk.net>, registered with Dynadot 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 November 13, 2025; Forum received payment on November 13, 2025.

 

On November 16, 2025, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <snapchatmodapk.net> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@snapchatmodapk.net.

 

Also on November 18, 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 December 10, 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 SNAPCHAT trademark established by its ownership of the portfolio of registrations described below and extensive use of the mark on its Internet platform.

 

Complainant submits that as a result of Complainant's widespread use of the SNAPCHAT mark, the continuous and unsolicited media coverage, high consumer recognition, and loyal user base, hundreds of millions of people worldwide have been exposed to the SNAPCHAT mark.

 

Complainant adds that the consuming public and trade recognize and associate the SNAPCHAT mark with Complainant; accordingly, the SNAPCHAT mark has acquired a high degree of public recognition and distinctiveness and embodies valuable reputation and goodwill belonging exclusively to Complainant.

 

Complainant has provided evidence of its extensive use of the mark in the annexes to the Complaint, which support its uncontested submissions that its SNAPCHAT platform was launched in 2011, and by February 2014, a study concluded that 77% of U.S. college students use the SNAPCHAT App at least once per day. By the end of 2014, the SNAPCHAT App had 70 million daily active users, and by the end of 2015, over 100 million daily active users. From December 2015 to December 2016, SNAPCHAT daily active users increased 48% to 158 million, each day visiting the App more than 18 times, spending an average of 25–30 minutes on the App, and sending over 2.5 billion Snaps, as exhibited in an annex to the Complaint.

 

During this period, Complainant submits the SNAPCHAT App consistently ranked among the Apple App Store's top five most downloaded photo applications and top 15 most downloaded mobile applications overall and was recognized as the most‑downloaded app in the Apple App Store in 2016, as exhibited in an annex to the Complaint. The SNAPCHAT App was also the 4th most downloaded app in the Apple App Store in 2021.

 

On September 24, 2016, Complainant changed its corporate name from Snapchat Inc. to Snap Inc. to reflect its growing list of products beyond the SNAPCHAT App.

 

By February 2017, the SNAPCHAT App had an estimated 79% market share among teenagers and young adults in the United States, giving it the highest reach among social media and networking sites, surpassing Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter.

 

As of September 2017, the SNAPCHAT App had more than 178 million daily active users globally (a 250% increase since 2014), who on average sent an estimated 3.5 billion Snaps every day, as exhibited in an annex to the Complaint. By the end of 2017, daily active users increased 8.9 million, or 5% sequentially, to 187 million.

 

According to Apple, the SNAPCHAT App has been among the world's top ten most downloaded iOS apps for six consecutive years (2016–2021), including the single most downloaded iOS app in 2016, as exhibited in an annex to the Complaint. As of the end of the second quarter of 2025, SNAPCHAT had, on average, 469 million daily active users.

 

On July 18, 2022, Complainant launched SNAPCHAT FOR WEB, enabling users to use the SNAPCHAT platform from desktop computers to send messages and Snaps and to communicate via video calls.

 

The above data are supported by documents exhibited in annexes to the Complaint.

 

Complainant further submits that relevantly its rights extend beyond the SNAPCHAT mark to its well-known SNAPCHAT YELLOW color and its GHOST LOGO logo used in its branding.

 

Complainant firstly alleges that the disputed domain name <snapchatmodapk.net> contains the SNAPCHAT mark in its entirety, rendering it identical or, at minimum, confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant submits that numerous panels established under the Policy have recognized that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity, including Snap Inc. v. Addison Mikkelson, FA 1942257 (Forum May 19, 2021) (adding "viewer" and the ".com" gTLD did not negate confusing similarity in <snapchatviewer.com>), Snap Inc. v. Malkam Dior, FA 1741274 (Forum Aug. 28, 2017) (<snapchatdrones.com> found confusingly similar to the wholly incorporated SNAPCHAT mark),

 

It is argued that the addition of generic or descriptive terms or abbreviations such as "mod" (a modification made to a software application by a user to change the way the application looks or functions) and "apk" (Android Package, the file format used by Android for distribution and installation of mobile applications) does not distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant's SNAPCHAT mark. Panels established under the Policy have consistently held that such additions do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See for example Lemon Inc. v. Mubashir Arain, FA 2111036 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024) (addition of "mod" and "apk" to CAPCUT in <modcapcutapk.com> did not prevent confusing similarity); JUUL Labs, Inc. v. mustafa mehmet / Afsin Tuluce / Saltica Ltd, FA 2078648 (Forum Feb. 21, 2024) (addition of "mod" to JUULPOD did not prevent confusing similarity).

 

Complainant adds that the inclusion of the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.net> does not change the conclusion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SNAPCHAT mark and panels have routinely found that gTLDs are insufficient to defeat confusing similarity.

 

Secondly Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing that

·       there is no relationship between Complainant and Respondent;

·       Complainant has not authorized Respondent to own or use any domain name incorporating SNAPCHAT;

·       nothing in the record or WHOIS indicates Respondent is commonly known by <snapchatmodapk.net>, and where nothing in the record or WHOIS shows that a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, panels have consistently found that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, as in Snap Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1735300 (Forum July 14, 2017) ("WHOIS information can evidence a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name.").

 

Furthermore, as shown in the screen captures exhibited by Complainant, Respondent uses the disputed domain name <snapchatmodapk.net> to drive traffic to a website offering unauthorized counterfeit software that competes with Complainant's own software in violation of Complainant's Terms of Service.

 

Specifically, as shown in the images exhibited by Complainant, the website to which the disputed domain name resolves uses the SNAPCHAT mark and Complainant's Ghost Logo, both in the favicon and throughout the website, to promote and offer an unauthorized version of the Snapchat app for download, as indicated by the "Download Snapchat v13.37.0.45 Mod APK" button on the landing page.

 

Complainant adds that use of the disputed domain name to offer products or services that compete with Complainant is neither a bona fide offering under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial/fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See, e.g., Instagram, LLC v. Fineline Developer, WIPO Case D2023‑3230 (respondent's use of <instagramproapk.download> to offer a modified Instagram app was not bona fide or fair use).

 

Complainant continues to argue that Respondent's use of Complainant's branding elements on the website—namely SNAPCHAT, SNAPCHAT YELLOW, and the GHOST LOGO—evidences Respondent's intent to attract users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant as the source or sponsor of Respondent's site, further supporting absence of rights or legitimate interests. See FTB Holdco, Inc. dba Zillow v. Ahsan Iqbal, FA 2117794 (Forum Oct. 23, 2024) (prominent display of ZILLOW mark supported prima facie showing of no rights or legitimate interests); Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. liu ying huan, FA 2115482 (Forum Oct. 10, 2024) (use of complainant's trademark and a design associated with complainant evidenced intent to divert traffic and supported finding of no legitimate interest), integrated into Complainant's reasoning.

 

Thirdly Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith arguing that:-

 

Respondent did not register the disputed domain name until April 8, 2025, long after Complainant had established its famous brand, as exhibited in an annex to the Complaint. Registration of a domain name years after Complainant first used its mark satisfies the bad‑faith requirement.

 

Given the notoriety of the SNAPCHAT mark and platform, and Respondent's lack of any rights in SNAPCHAT, Complainant submits that Respondent did not register <snapchatmodapk.net> for any legitimate or fair‑use purpose.

 

Rather, it argues, the disputed domain name was registered to drive traffic to a site offering counterfeit software that competes with Complainant's offerings; such use is neither legitimate nor fair under the Policy.

 

As shown in the screen captures exhibited in the Complaint, Respondent's use of the disputed domain name to offer an unauthorized version of software competing with the SNAPCHAT App further evidences bad faith registration and use. Using a disputed domain name to disrupt Complainant's business, trade upon Complainant's goodwill, and compete with Complainant constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv). See Snap Inc. v. RAJAT NAIK / REZONE, FA 2099351 (Forum June 18, 2024) (use of SNAPCHAT, GHOST LOGO, and color similar to SNAPCHAT YELLOW on website offering unauthorized SNAPCHAT App demonstrated actual knowledge and bad faith).

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is the owner of the SNAPCHAT Internet platform, and is the registered owner of a large portfolio of registered trademarks including the following:

·       United States registered trademark 4,375,712, registered on the Principal Register on July 30, 2013 for goods in international class 9.

·       Australian Registered Trade Mark SNAPCHAT registration number 1558022, registered on August 21, 2013 for goods in class 9.

·       Canadian registered trademark SNAPCHAT, registration number 954,928, registered on November 10, 2016 for goods in class 9.

 

The disputed domain name <snapchatmodapk.net> was registered on April 8, 2025, and resolves to a website that purports to replicate Complainant's SNAPCHAT platform and pass itself off as being Complainant's website, while purporting to offer an unauthorized version of Complainant's app for download.

 

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.

 

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 convincing evidence of its rights in the SNAPCHAT mark established by its ownership of the abovementioned trademark registrations and extensive use of the mark on its famous Internet platform.

 

The disputed domain name <snapchatmodapk.net> consists of Complainant's mark in its entirety in combination with the elements "mod" and "apk".

 

Complainant has submitted that the element "mod" is an abbreviation of a modification made to a software application by a user to change the way the application looks or functions, and the element "apk" is an abbreviation for an Android Package, the file format used by Android for distribution and installation of mobile applications.

 

It is well established that it is sufficient for a complainant to establish that the domain name at issue contains the mark relied upon in its entirety, to satisfy the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  In the disputed domain name, the additional elements "mod" and "apk" do not prevent a finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark. Each of these elements has a technical relevance to an Internet platform such as SNAPCHAT.

 

In the circumstances of this Complaint the gTLD extension <.net> within the disputed domain name may be ignored for the purposes of comparing the mark and the disputed domain name, because it would be considered by Internet users to be a necessary technical element for a domain name.

 

This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name <snapchatmodapk.net> is confusingly similar to the SNAPCHAT mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain names as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above.

 

In particular that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that purports to pass itself off as Complainant's SNAPCHAT platform, using Complainant's mark, its yellow livery and its ghost logo, and offer the public unauthorized versions of Complainant's famous SNAPCHAT platform.

 

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's trademark and its famous and eponymous SNAPCHAT Internet platform was platform was launched in 2011, whereas the disputed domain name <snapchatmodapk.net> was not registered until April 8, 2025

 

Complainant has submitted uncontested evidence that as of the end of the second quarter of 2025, SNAPCHAT had, on average, 469 million daily active users, as exhibited in an annex to the Complaint. The fame of the mark is well-established.

 

Complainant's mark is the dominant and only distinctive element in the disputed domain name.

 

On the balance of probabilities, therefore, this Panel finds that the registrant of the disputed domain name was aware of Complainant, its SNAPCHAT mark and its famous Internet platform when the disputed domain name was chosen and registered; and that the disputed domain name was registered with Complainant's mark in mind in order to take predatory advantage of Complainant's goodwill and reputation in the mark and its Internet platform.

 

Complainant has exhibited screen captures of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves. The images show that the resolving website contains the SNAPCHAT mark and Complainant's Ghost Logo, both in the favicon and throughout the website, on a yellow background as used by Complainant. The resolving website purports to promote and offer an unauthorized version of the Snapchat app for download, as indicated by the "Download Snapchat v13.37.0.45 Mod APK" button on the landing page.

 

Such use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that purports to pass itself off as Complainant, while offering unauthorized downloads of Complainant's famous SNAPCHAT app demonstrates an intent on the part of Respondent to use the disputed domain name to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement, of the website to which it resolves satisfying Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith and Complainant has 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 <snapchatmodapk.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

___________________________________________

 

 

James Bridgeman SC

Panelist

Dated: December 10, 2025