NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

DECISION

Snap Inc. v. Maria Bibi

Claim Number: FA2511002191542

PARTIES

Complainant is Snap Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Silvia A. Francis-Bongue of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Maria Bibi ("Respondent"), Pakistan.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <snaptroid.win>, <snaptroid.cloud>, <snaptroid.tools>, <snaptroid.diy>, <snaptroid.guru>, <snaptroid.onl> and <snaptroid.mobi>, 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.

The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 26, 2025; Forum received payment on November 26, 2025.

On November 26, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <snaptroid.win>, <snaptroid.cloud>, <snaptroid.tools>, <snaptroid.diy>, <snaptroid.guru>, <snaptroid.onl> and <snaptroid.mobi> 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 December 1, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 22, 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.win, postmaster@snaptroid.cloud, postmaster@snaptroid.tools, postmaster@snaptroid.diy, postmaster@snaptroid.guru, postmaster@snaptroid.onl, and postmaster@snaptroid.mobi. Also on December 1, 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.

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on December 1, 2025.

The Complainant has filed a proposed additional submission, but the Panel finds that the issues have been adequately discussed in the Complaint and the Response.

On December 2, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC 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.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant made the following contentions.

1. The Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision of the immensely popular camera and messaging application and storytelling platform SNAPCHAT and has been so engaged since at least 2011 under its then name Snapchat Inc. but more recently Snap Inc.

2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under its registered trademark for SNAP and other trademarks for SNAPCHAT, its famous Ghost logo and Snapchat Yellow color, all of which are famous.

3. The SNAP trademark has attracted substantial goodwill and is uniquely associated with the Complainant's goods and services.

4. As well as its aforesaid trademarks, the Complainant has registered the <snapchat.com> and <snap.com> domain names which it has continually used since their registration in its business and to promote its goods and services.

5. The Respondent registered the <snaptroid.win>, <snaptroid.cloud>, <snaptroid.tools>, <snaptroid.diy>, <snaptroid.guru>, <snaptroid.onl> and <snaptroid.mobi> domain names on February 22, 2025 ("the disputed domain names").

6. The disputed domain names embody, without the consent of the Complainant, the SNAP trademark, each with the additional word "troid" and successively one of the aforesaid generic Top Level Domains.

7. The disputed domain names have resolved to the Infringing Websites at <snaptroid.win>, <snaptroid.cloud>, <snaptroid.tools>, <snaptroid.diy>, <snaptroid.guru>, <snaptroid.onl> and <snaptroid.mobi> (the "Infringing Websites").

8. The Infringing Websites all used the Ghost Logo surrounded by Snapchat Yellow in the favicon and on the website, along with the SNAP mark, to promote and offer an unauthorized version of the Snapchat application, as indicated by the "Download Now" button on each of the websites.

9. The websites for <snaptroid.cloud>, <snaptroid.tools>, <snaptroid.diy>, <snaptroid.guru>, <snaptroid.onl>, and <snaptroid.mobi> all functioned in the same way, though each used a different color scheme.

10. The aforesaid conduct was in breach of the Complainant's Terms of Service.

11. As of October 9, 2025, the websites for <snaptroid.win>, <snaptroid.cloud>, <snaptroid.tools>, <snaptroid.diy> and <snaptroid.mobi> resolve to parked websites, which feature pay-per-click advertisements and links.

12. As of October 9, 2025, the appearance of the landing pages of the websites at <snaptroid.guru> and <snaptroid.onl> changed, but the functionality remains the same.

13. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the SNAP trademark.

14. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. That is so because:

(a) the Complainant has not given the Respondent any permission or other consent to use its trademark in any of the domain names or in any other way and the Respondent has no relationship with the Complainant;

(b) the aforesaid use of the domain names by the Respondent is not a bona fide offer of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and the Respondent has not used the domain names for any such bona fide purpose;

(d) the Respondent has used the disputed domain names to drive traffic to the respective websites to offer unauthorized counterfeit software that competes with the Complainant's own official software offerings;

(e) in addition, the current use of the disputed domain names <snaptroid.win>, <snaptroid.cloud>, <snaptroid.tools>, <snaptroid.diy> and <snaptroid.mobi> to resolve to parked websites, which feature pay-per-click advertisements and links, is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii);

(f) Respondent's use of Snapchat branding elements on the Infringing Websites, namely the Ghost Logo surrounded by Snapchat Yellow in the favicons and on the Infringing Websites, is further evidence of Respondent's intent to attract users to the Infringing Websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as the source of Respondent's website; such use supports a finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Infringing Domain or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name; and

(g) there is no other basis on which it could conceivably be contended that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the domain names.

15. The Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith. That is so because:

(a) the Respondent at all material times and in particular when it registered the disputed domain names had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its trademarks, brand and business, as verified by the Respondent's use of the aforesaid Ghost Logo and Snapchat Yellow;

(b) the aforesdaid use of the domain names to offer unauthorized versions of software that compete with the Complainant's Snapchat App is evidence of bad faith registration and use;

(d) the aforesaid conduct was calculated to generate confusion between the Complainant and the Respondent and their respective websites within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and for profit;

(e) the current use of the Infringing Domain Names <snaptroid.win>, <snaptroid.cloud>, <snaptroid.tools>, <snaptroid.diy> and <snaptroid.mobi> to resolve to parked websites, which feature pay-per-click advertisements and links, is further evidence of bad faith;

(f) the Respondent used a privacy service when registering the disputed domain names; and

(g) all of the acts, facts, matters and circumstances to be revealed by the evidence will show that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith and that there is no plausible circumstance under which the Respondent could legitimately have registered and used the disputed domain names.

The evidence will therefore establish that the Complainant has been able to make out all of the grounds it must establish and that it is entitled to the relief that it seeks.

B. Respondent

The Respondent made the following contentions.

" Respondent: Maria Bibi

Case Number: FA2511002191542

Domains: snaptroid.win, snaptroid.cloud, snaptroid.tools, snaptroid.diy, snaptroid.guru, snaptroid.onl, snaptroid.mobi(.)

I, the Respondent, am an independent content creator and tech publisher. The "Snaptroid" project was created as a general informational and utility-based platform. I have never attempted to impersonate or mislead users into believing that my websites were affiliated with Snap Inc. or Snapchat.

2. No Confusing Similarity (Policy 4(a)(i))

The Complainant's mark is SNAPCHAT. My domain names contain the word Snaptroid, which is: .Not identical to the Snapchat trademark(,) . A different word in both sound and meaning ( and). A combination derived from "Snap" (a generic tech term) + "troid" (Android-related) (.) The domain names do not replicate or copy "Snapchat," nor do they create a likelihood of confusion.The word "Snap" is widely used in the technology industry (e.g., snapshots, snap utilities, snap framework), making it an inherently descriptive and non-exclusive term.

3. Respondent Has Rights and Legitimate Interests (Policy 4(a)(ii))

I used the domain(s) for:General tech information..User guides.Tutorials Independent third-party content(.).The websites never claimed to be official Snapchat services. I did not use Snapchat's logos, trademarks, branding, or attempt to misrepresent myself as Snapchat.

This establishes legitimate, good-faith use of the domain names.

4. No Bad Faith Registration or Use (Policy 4(a)(iii))

There is no evidence of bad faith because: I did not register the domains to sell them to Snapchat. I did not register the domains to harm Snapchat.I did not divert users for commercial gain.I never created content that impersonated Snapchat.The domains were not used for phishing or any harmful activity (.) I registered them for informational purposes only, believing the name "Snaptroid" to be a unique independent brand.The Complaint has not shown any actual evidence of bad-faith registration or usage.Therefore, the third element of the Policy is not satisfied.

5. Requested Relief

I respectfully request: That the Complaint be denied(.) That no transfer of the domain names be ordered

6. Respondent's Preferred Email Contact

(Your email here — e.g.,) snewdomainbuy@gmail.com

7. Closing Statement

I confirm that at no point did I intend to misuse the Snapchat name or cause confusion."Snaptroid" is an independent project, created in good faith and used for legitimate informational content. As such, I request that the Panel deny the Complaint in its entirety."

FINDINGS

1. The Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision of the popular camera and messaging application and storytelling platform SNAPCHAT and has been so engaged since at least 2011 under its then name Snapchat Inc. but more recently Snap Inc.

2. The Complainant provides its goods and services under its registered trademark for SNAP and other trademarks for SNAPCHAT, its famous Ghost Logo and Snapchat Yellow color, all of which are famous (collectively "the SNAP trademark").

3. The Respondent registered the <snaptroid.win>, <snaptroid.cloud>, <snaptroid.tools>, <snaptroid.diy>, <snaptroid.guru>, <snaptroid.onl> and <snaptroid.mobi> domain names on February 22, 2025 ("the disputed domain names"),

4. The Respondent has used the disputed domain names to drive internet traffic to their respective websites to offer unauthorized counterfeit software that competes with the Complainant's own official software offerings.

5. By reason of the matters aforesaid, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the SNAP trademark, the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names and the disputed domain names have been registered and used in bad faith.

6. The Complainant has made out all of the elements it must establish under the Policy and is entitled to the relief it seeks, namely the transfer of the disputed domain names from the Respondent to the Complainant.

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.

At the outset, the Panel finds as proven all of the factual matters set out in the Complaint and the extensive evidence contained in the Annexes attached to the Complaint. The Panel also finds that each of the disputed domain names has been used in the manner set out in the Contentions section of this decision.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The first question that arises is whether the Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely . The evidence has shown that the Complainant is and has been since at least the year 2011 engaged in the provision of the popular camera and messaging application and storytelling platform known as SNAP and SNAPCHAT. The evidence is also that the Complainant provides that service under a series of registered trademarks for SNAP and SNAPCHAT and derivatives. It also has registered trademarks for its famous Ghost Logo and Snapchat Yellow color.

In summary, the evidence shows that the Complainant is the registered owner on many trademarks for SNAP, SNAPCHAT, derivatives from those trademarks, other registrations of the same trademarks, domestically via the United States Patent and Trademark Office and internationally via recognized trademark registration authorities and registrations of the Complainant's Ghost Logo and Snapchat Yellow color trademarks, all of which are famous (collectively "the SNAP trademark").

For the sake of completeness, the Panel notes and so finds that the SNAP trademark is registered as, inter alia, United States Patent & Trademark Office Reg. No. 4,345,533, registered on June 4, 2013.

Moreover, the foregoing registrations were established by documentary evidence that the Panel has examined and finds to be in order. All of the Complainant's registrations were made prior to the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain names.

The Complainant has thus established its trademark rights pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and hence its standing to bring this proceeding.

The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's SNAP trademark. The Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to the SNAP trademark for the following reasons.

Each of the domain names includes the SNAP trademark as its first and dominant feature. When a domain name includes a trademark, it is more likely than not that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark, as the domain name will usually be dominated by the trademark as it will be the first and most significant portion of the domain name. In the present case that is obviously so, as each of the domain names commences with the word "snap". Thus, internet users would assume, correctly, that the disputed domain names are invoking and drawing attention to the SNAP trademark and that they relate to that trademark and the activities conducted under it. Each of the domain names is therefore similar to the SNAP trademark.

Each of the domain names then includes an additional word, namely "troid", which gives rise to the question of what that word means and whether its presence would negate the conclusion that the domain name in question is confusingly similar to the trademark.

In that regard, the Panel need go no further than to adopt the observations of the Panel in Snap Inc. v. Silk er / Anton Nita, FA 2148704, (Forum April 30, 2025). That case concerned the domain names <snaptroid.vip>, <snaptroid.co> and <snaptroid.org>, which, it will be seen involved exactly the same expression "snaptroid" as in the present case. The Panel in that decision observed:

"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… .").

The current panel agrees with and adopts those remarks. An objective bystander could not but conclude that each of the disputed domain names means some concept "similar to, or resembling, SNAP…". Thus, the overall impact of each domain name is that it is invoking the SNAP trademark and the goods and services offered under it, showing that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark.

It is also the established practice in this field that extensions such as ".com" or other extensions of type in the present proceeding such as ".win" etc., are disregarded for the purposes of the comparison between a trademark and a domain name, as all domain names require such an extension. There are many prior UDRP decisions to that effect.

Applying these well-accepted principles, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the SNAP trademark.

The Respondent has given its grounds in the Response as to why, in its submission, the disputed domain names are not confusingly similar to the SNAP trademark. The Panel rejects all of those grounds as they are not supported by the evidence and are contrary to well-established principles. In particular, the Respondent's submission that the domain names are not identical to the trademark is nothing to the point, as the question is whether the domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the trademark. Moreover, the Respondent is, with respect, wrong in submitting that the domain names do not "create a likelihood of confusion" with the trademark; the domain names do in fact create that likelihood, as the domain names all include the word "snaptroid" which clearly invokes the trademark and raises a serious question whether the domain names are official domain names of the trademark owner or not.

The Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish as provided in Policy ¶4(a)(i).

Rights or Legitimate Interests

It is now well established that the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and that, if the prima facie case is made out, the burden then shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have such rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)).

The Panel finds on the evidence that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case with respect to each of the disputed domain names that arises from the following considerations. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names on all of the grounds relied on by the Complainant, namely:

(a) the evidence shows that the Complainant has not given the Respondent any permission or other consent to use its trademark in any of the domain names or in any other way and the Respondent has no relationship with the Complainant; the evidence is that the Respondent has used the Complainant's SNAP trademark, GHOST and YELLOW trademarks to promote its own genuine products;

(b) the use of the domain names by the Respondent which has already been described is not a bona fide offer of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and the Respondent has not used the domain names for any such bona fide purpose; the offering of unauthorized and proven counterfeit downloads cannot be bona fide; in support of that finding, it should be noted that in the recent decision in Snap Inc. v. arif ullah, FA 2182648 (Forum, Nov. 4, 2025) the factual situation was that "Respondent uses the Domain Name to drive traffic to the Infringing Website to offer unauthorized counterfeit software that competes with Complainant's own software offerings in violation of Complainant's Terms of Service"; the Panel concluded in that decision that "Respondent uses the Domain Name to drive traffic to offer unauthorized counterfeit software that competes with Complainant's own software. The Complainant submitted evidence which supports that unauthorized counterfeit software can be downloaded from the Infringing Website under the Domain Name and the Infringing Website prominently features Snapchat branding elements Snapchat Yellow and the Ghost Logo. See Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Graham Thomas, FA 1940033 (Forum May 7, 2021) ("Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain name's resolving website, feature Complainant's mark and purport to sell either counterfeit products or Complainant's products without authorization.... Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)."); (t)he Panel finds that offering competing or counterfeit software under the SNAPCHAT Mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). The Panel notes that the Respondent has failed to rebut the assertions of the Complainant:…"; the conclusion in the present case must therefore, like the decision in Snap Inc. v. Silk er / Anton Nita, (supra), be that the Respondent's use of the domain names was not a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i);

(c) the evidence is that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii);

(d) the evidence is that the Respondent has used the disputed domain names to drive traffic to the respective websites to offer unauthorized counterfeit software that competes with the Complainant's own official and well-recognised software offerings;

(f) it has already been established by the evidence that the Respondent's use of Snapchat branding elements on the infringing websites, namely the Ghost Logo surrounded by Snapchat Yellow in the favicons and on the Infringing Websites, is further evidence of Respondent's intent to attract users to the infringing websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as the source of Respondent's website; and

(g) there is no other basis on which it could conceivably be contended that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names.

The Complainant has thus made out a persuasive and detailed prima facie case on the evidence for all of the grounds it relies on to show that the Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names.

The Respondent's Response.

The Respondent has filed a Response and its argument is:

"I used the domain(s) for: (g)eneral tech information, (u)ser guides, (t)utorials and (i)ndependent third-party content.The websites never claimed to be official Snapchat services. I did not use Snapchat's logos, trademarks, branding, or attempt to misrepresent myself as Snapchat.

This establishes legitimate, good-faith use of the domain names."

The Panel does not accept that those arguments negate the prima facie case against the Respondent and for the following reasons.

First, the Panel does not accept that the Respondent's intention was solely, or at all, simply to impart "information", to provide a guide to the SNAP processes, give tutorials or provide independent content. Such a conclusion would go contrary to the thrust and substance of the evidence which is, not to make too fine a point of it, that the Respondent has clearly embarked on the process of offering to all takers some form of counterfeit software and an invitation to download it. One only has to look at the websites to which the domain names resolve to see how true that is. The Panel has examined those websites, which are in evidence and, without repeating in detail all of their content, they make such offerings as " Snapchat-The Ultimate Snapchat Downloader", "Download Snaptroid APK", and "Snaptroid Online Free Snapchat Toolkit" which the evidence is, are counterfeit, and which in any event are making unauthorised use of the Complainant's trademark and are being offered in competition to the Complainant's official and genuine processes. Such offerings can scarcely give rise to a right or legitimate interest in the very domain names used to promote them and make them available.

Moreover, even if the offerings can be properly categorised as the Respondent has claimed, they do not justify the use of unauthorized software and hence do not give rise to a right or legitimate interest in the domain names.

It should also be said that, contrary to the Respondent's submissions, the Respondent in fact has used "Snapchat's logos, trademarks, branding, or attempt to misrepresent ( itself) as Snapchat", as the resolving websites make extensive use of the Complainant's registered Ghost Logo and Snapchat Yellow.

The Respondent's argument in the Response is therefore unsupported on the facts and is contrary to basic principle.

The Respondent has not rebutted the prima facie case against it and the prima facie case has therefore been confirmed.

The Complainant has therefore made out the second of the three elements it must establish under Policy ¶4(a)(ii).

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, the Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) are not exclusive but that domain name proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.

In view of the evidence discussed above, particularly the evidence contained in the series of Annexes to the Complainant showing how the Respondent has used the series of websites to which the domain names have resolved, which is equally as applicable to bad faith as it is to rights and legitimate interests and which it is not necessary to repeat here, it is clear that the Complainant has made out all of the grounds relied on.

The Respondent has clearly been motivated by bad faith in the registration of the domain names and has continued in that conduct after its registration, showing bad faith use; the registration was, as was its use, clearly an attempt by the Respondent to use its domain names, incorporating as they do, the Complainant's SNAP trademark, its Ghost and Yellow trademarks to download and promote counterfeit software for a dishonest and probably financial objective, as it resolves to a website which is clearly in bad faith. It is therefore clear from the evidence that, as the Complainant has submitted:

(a) the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and its trademarks, brand and business, as verified by the Respondent's use of the aforesaid SNAP, Ghost Logo and Snapchat Yellow trademarks and its frequent use on the offending websites of notices such as "Snapchat-The Ultimate Snapchat Downloader", "Download Snaptroid APK", and "Snaptroid Online Free Snapchat Toolkit"; indeed, the Respondent could not have carried out its subterfuge without having had such actual knowledge;

(b) the aforesaid use of the domain names to offer unauthorized versions of software that compete with the Complainant's Snapchat App is evidence of bad faith registration and use;

(d) the aforesaid conduct was calculated to generate confusion between the Complainant and the Respondent and their respective websites within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and the Respondent has done everything it could do to invoke the Complainant and its SNAP and other trademarks which must have led to confusion;

(e) the evidence also shows that the current use of the Infringing domain names <snaptroid.win>, <snaptroid.cloud>, <snaptroid.tools>, <snaptroid.diy> and <snaptroid.mobi> to resolve to parked websites, which feature pay-per-click advertisements and links, is further evidence of bad faith;

(f) the Respondent used a privacy service when registering the disputed domain names; and

(g) all of the acts, facts, matters and circumstances revealed by the evidence have shown that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith and that there is no plausible circumstance under which the Respondent could legitimately have registered and used the them.

The Respondent has given its grounds in the Response as to why, in its submission, the disputed domain names have not been registered and used in bad faith. The Panel rejects all of those grounds as they are not supported by the evidence and are contrary to well-established principles.

The Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

The conclusion on all of the issues is that the Complainant has presented a detailed and persuasive case consisting of evidence that has established all of the constituent elements that must be proved under the Policy.

The Complainant has also cited numerous prior UDRP decisions which support all of its contentions. Indeed, the issues in this proceeding have now been thoroughly analysed several times and successive panels have reached the same conclusion.

The Respondent in its Closing Statement has stated that at no point did it intend to misuse the Snapchat name or cause confusion, (that) "Snaptroid" is an independent project, created in good faith and used for legitimate informational content (and that) it request(s) that the Panel deny the Complaint in its entirety." The Panel rejects all of those grounds as they are not supported by the evidence and are contrary to well-established principles.

The Complainant has therefore established all the elements that it must show under the Policy and it is entitled to the relief it seeks, namely transfer of the disputed domain names.

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.win>, <snaptroid.cloud>, <snaptroid.tools>, <snaptroid.diy>, <snaptroid.guru>, <snaptroid.onl> and <snaptroid.mobi> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown KC

Panelist

Dated: December 5, 2025