DECISION

 

Snap Inc. v. Uzair Ahmed / rehan mubarak / Synoxia / dayyan khan / Hamza Jahangir / humaira khan / Asif Qasim / Groupon LTD

Claim Number: FA2601002201559

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Snap Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Silvia A. Francis-Bongue of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Uzair Ahmed / rehan mubarak / Synoxia / dayyan khan / Hamza Jahangir / humaira khan / Asif Qasim / Groupon LTD ("Respondent"), Pakistan.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <snaptroid.ws>, <snaptroidhub.com>, <snaptroiddl.com>, <snaptroids.net>, <thesnaptroid.com> and  <snaptroid2.cc> (the "Disputed Domain Names"), registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the "Registrar").

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Ivett Paulovics as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 23, 2026; Forum received payment on January 23, 2026.

 

On January 26, 2026, the Registrar confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <snaptroid.ws>, <snaptroidhub.com>, <snaptroiddl.com>, <snaptroids.net>, <thesnaptroid.com> and  <snaptroid2.cc> domain names are registered with the Registrar and that Respondent is the current registrant of the Disputed Domain Names. The Registrar has verified that Respondent is bound by the Registrar's 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 January 28, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 17, 2026 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.ws, postmaster@snaptroidhub.com, postmaster@snaptroiddl.com, postmaster@snaptroids.net, postmaster@thesnaptroid.com, postmaster@snaptroid2.cc. Also on January 28, 2026, 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 February 2, 2026.

 

On February 2, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ivett Paulovics as Panelist.

 

On February 3, 2026, Complainant's Additional Submission was received by Forum.

 

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 Disputed Domain Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS

Complainant alleges that the entities controlling the Disputed Domain Names are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity operating under several aliases.

 

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. Under Forum Supplemental Rule 4(c), the Panel must determine which of the Disputed Domain Names are commonly owned and elect a single Respondent to proceed against, as a UDRP decision may proceed against only one respondent.

 

The Registrar's verification discloses different registrant names and contact details for the Disputed Domain Names. Standing alone, this would weigh against consolidation. However, panels have recognized that the use of different registration identities does not preclude a finding of common control where the totality of circumstances supports such an inference. See, e.g., Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Jonathan Riley / Alex Yum / Lotta Ek, FA 2030386 (Forum Feb. 28, 2023); Sub-Zero, Inc. v. Daniel Ellis / Joel Gonzalez / SEO Repair Shop / Elite Sub-Zero Repair, FA 2014882 (Forum Nov. 15, 2022); Snap Inc. v. Domain Administrator, et al., FA 1933412 (Forum May 11, 2021).

 

In the present case, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case of common control based on multiple objective indicia in the record.

 

First, all Disputed Domain Names incorporate the distinctive "snaptroid" element with minor descriptive variations and differing gTLDs, indicating a coordinated naming pattern rather than independent selection by unrelated parties.

 

Second, the Disputed Domain Names were registered through the same registrar within a relatively short period of time in mid-2025 and were previously shielded by similar privacy services, supporting an inference of coordinated registration activity.

 

Third, Complainant's evidence demonstrates that the resolving websites associated with the Disputed Domain Names promote substantially similar services under the "Snaptroid" designation and display common branding elements, including similar color schemes, logos, and overall presentation. The websites further employ comparable mechanisms designed to induce users to download or access purported software tools, notwithstanding certain variations in page layout and download pathways.

 

Taken together, these circumstances are consistent with the types of factors that panels have previously considered relevant in assessing common control, including in cases where consolidation was permitted notwithstanding differing registrant information.

 

The Panel further notes that only one Response was filed in this proceeding, limited to the domain name <snaptroid.ws>. That Response does not contest consolidation and does not provide evidence establishing that the remaining Disputed Domain Names are independently owned or operated. No other named registrant submitted a response or otherwise rebutted Complainant's prima facie showing.

 

In view of the coordinated naming pattern, registration circumstances, website content, and absence of contrary evidence, the Panel finds, on the balance of probabilities, that the Disputed Domain Names are subject to common control.

 

The Panel therefore concludes that consolidation is appropriate, fair, and procedurally efficient in the circumstances of this case. Accordingly, the Panel will proceed against a single Respondent for purposes of this Decision.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to its SNAP and SNAPCHAT trademarks and related marks. Complainant asserts that the Disputed Domain Names incorporate the dominant "snap" element of its marks and that the addition of the term "troid" or other descriptive elements does not dispel confusing similarity or prevent user confusion.

 

Complainant maintains that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. Complainant asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names, has not been licensed or authorized to use Complainant's marks, and is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant argues that promoting unauthorized or counterfeit software competing with Complainant's official Snapchat application does not confer rights or legitimate interests.

 

Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Names resolve to websites that advertise and distribute unauthorized software and tools purporting to enable users to access or monitor private Snapchat content. Complainant contends that the websites either trigger file downloads or redirect users to external download locations and promote applications that circumvent Complainant's technological and contractual safeguards.

 

Complainant further asserts that the websites associated with the Disputed Domain Names make use of Complainant's branding elements, including the Ghost Logo and the Snapchat Yellow color scheme, thereby reinforcing the misleading impression of affiliation with Complainant.

 

With respect to registration and use in bad faith, Complainant contends that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names with actual knowledge of Complainant's well-known marks and has used them to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement, within the meaning of Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Complainant further asserts that Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Names to promote unauthorized software that competes with Complainant's official application constitutes bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent submitted a Response limited to the domain name <snaptroid.ws>. Respondent identifies himself as Uzair Ahmed, the registrant of that domain name, and requests that the Panel deny Complainant's request for transfer.

 

With respect to confusing similarity, Respondent contends that <snaptroid.ws> is not confusingly similar to Complainant's marks. Respondent argues that the addition of the suffix "troid" creates a distinct visual and phonetic identity and that the term "snap" is a common English word used in various industries, over which Complainant does not have exclusive rights.

 

With respect to rights or legitimate interests, Respondent asserts that, before receiving notice of the dispute, he was using <snaptroid.ws> for a bona fide offering of services. Respondent states that the domain name was registered to provide specific software tools or informational content that does not compete directly with Complainant's core services.

 

Respondent further asserts that <snaptroid.ws> is intended to provide "independent utility" and that any referenced software is intended for legitimate personal or educational purposes, such as use by "caring parents wanting to check on kids."

 

Respondent contends that he has not attempted to impersonate Complainant or use Complainant's official logos to mislead users.

 

With respect to registration and use in bad faith, Respondent maintains that <snaptroid.ws> was registered for its descriptive value and not to target Complainant's brand or disrupt its business. Respondent asserts that he has not intentionally attempted to attract users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's marks.

 

Respondent does not address the remaining Disputed Domain Names, does not claim ownership or control over them, and does not contest Complainant's request for consolidation.

 

C. Additional Submissions

In its Additional Submission, Complainant disputes Respondent's assertions of descriptive use, bona fide offering, and legitimate utility. Complainant argues that Respondent has failed to rebut Complainant's evidence of confusing similarity, lack of rights or legitimate interests, and bad faith. Complainant further contends that Respondent's claimed "independent utility" is not supported by the website content and that Respondent has provided no credible evidence in support of its defenses.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is Snap Inc., a United States-based technology company that owns and operates the Snapchat social media and messaging platform. Snapchat enables users to send messages, images, and videos that are typically viewable for a limited time, and to share content with selected contacts.

 

According to the evidence submitted by Complainant, Snapchat has hundreds of millions of daily active users worldwide and is among the most widely used social media platforms globally. Complainant has submitted evidence of substantial revenues, extensive media coverage, and significant global market presence in support of its claims regarding the notoriety of the Snapchat platform and related trademarks.

 

Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for the SNAP and SNAPCHAT marks and related marks in multiple jurisdictions. Complainant has used these marks in commerce in connection with its services since at least 2011.

 

The Disputed Domain Names were registered between July and September 2025, as confirmed by the Registrar's verification and the WHOIS records submitted in evidence.

 

Prior to disclosure of the registrant information, the Disputed Domain Names were shielded by privacy services. Following Registrar verification, different registrant names and contact details were disclosed for the Disputed Domain Names.

 

Complainant has submitted screenshots and descriptions of the websites to which the Disputed Domain Names resolved (the "Websites"). The evidence shows that, during the relevant period, the Websites promoted software or tools identified as "Snaptroid" and advertised functionalities relating to access to Snapchat content.

 

The evidence further shows that the Websites contained buttons or links labeled, inter alia, "Download Snaptroid 2.0" and "Download Snaptroid 3.0", and that clicking these buttons triggered file downloads or redirected users to external download locations.

 

Complainant's evidence indicates that the Websites made use of branding elements associated with Complainant, including the Ghost Logo and the Snapchat Yellow color scheme, in favicons and/or on the Websites' pages.

 

The screenshots and descriptions submitted by Complainant show that the Websites displayed variations in layout, wording, and download mechanisms, but shared common themes, terminology, and functionality relating to the promotion and distribution of "Snaptroid" software.

 

The evidence further shows that some of the Websites redirected users to third-party hosting platforms or external domains from which APK files were made available for download.

 

Only one Response was filed in this proceeding. The Response was submitted by Uzair Ahmed, identified as the registrant of <snaptroid.ws>, and addressed only that domain name. No responses were filed by the registrants of the remaining Disputed Domain Names.

 

In his Response, Respondent does not deny that <snaptroid.ws> was used to promote software or informational content relating to Snapchat. Respondent asserts that the domain name was registered for descriptive purposes and that any referenced software was intended for legitimate personal or educational use.

 

Respondent did not submit documentary evidence to substantiate his assertions regarding the nature or functionality of the software promoted on <snaptroid.ws>.

 

No evidence in the record indicates that Complainant authorized Respondent or any registrant of the Disputed Domain Names to use Complainant's trademarks or branding elements.

 

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 the domain names should be transferred:

 

(1)       the domain names registered by Respondent are 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 names; and

(3)       the domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The first element of the Policy functions primarily as a standing requirement. Where a complainant holds a nationally or regionally registered trademark or service mark, this prima facie satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case. See Quora, Inc. v. Jon Ban, FA 1997021 (Forum July 22, 2022).

 

In the present case, Complainant has submitted evidence of multiple trademark registrations for the SNAP and SNAPCHAT marks in numerous jurisdictions. The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in these marks for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

 

Once a complainant has established trademark rights, the Panel assesses whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark. This test involves a straightforward comparison of the alphanumeric domain name and the textual elements of the trademark to determine whether the mark is recognizable within the domain name. Where a domain name wholly incorporates the complainant's mark, or where a dominant element remains clearly recognizable, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar. See Google LLC v. Domain Manager, FA 1755084 (Forum Jan. 18, 2018). The applicable top-level domain is disregarded in this analysis as a functional element of registration. See The Regents of The University of Michigan v. Jason Ferrantello, FA 2019913 (Forum Dec. 29, 2022).

 

The Disputed Domain Names are:

·       <snaptroid.ws>

·       <snaptroidhub.com>

·       <snaptroiddl.com>

·       <snaptroids.net>

·       <thesnaptroid.com>

·       <snaptroid2.cc>.

 

Each of the Disputed Domain Names incorporates the term "snaptroid", which contains the dominant "snap" element of Complainant's SNAP and SNAPCHAT marks. The addition of the suffix "troid," as well as other descriptive terms such as "hub", "dl", "s", "the", and numerals, does not prevent Complainant's mark from being clearly recognizable within the Disputed Domain Names.

 

The Panel finds that the dominant "snap" element of Complainant's marks remains immediately apparent in each of the Disputed Domain Names. The inclusion of additional letters or descriptive elements does not sufficiently distinguish the Disputed Domain Names from Complainant's marks, particularly given the notoriety of the SNAP and SNAPCHAT marks and their close association with Complainant's services.

 

Disregarding the applicable generic top-level domains and country-code top-level domains, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant's marks within the meaning of Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

 

While not a replacement for the side-by-side comparison, the broader context of the case further supports a finding of confusing similarity. The evidence shows that the websites associated with the Disputed Domain Names promoted software and services relating to Snapchat and made use of Complainant's branding elements, including the Ghost Logo and the Snapchat Yellow color scheme. This use reinforces the likelihood that Internet users would associate the Disputed Domain Names with Complainant.

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, Complainant bears the burden of establishing that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names. Once Complainant makes a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks such rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production shifts to Respondent to present evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014).

 

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name by showing, inter alia, that:

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

(ii)                      it has been commonly known by the domain name, even if it has not acquired trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii)                      it is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the complainant's mark.

 

In the present case, the Panel finds that Complainant has made out a sufficient prima facie case. The Disputed Domain Names were registered well after Complainant had established rights in the SNAP and SNAPCHAT marks. As discussed above, the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant's marks. Complainant has further asserted, and the record does not contradict, that Respondent has not been authorized to use Complainant's marks and is not affiliated with Complainant.

 

The Panel finds no evidence in the record indicating that Respondent has been commonly known by any of the Disputed Domain Names within the meaning of Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. The registrant information disclosed by the Registrar does not correspond to the Disputed Domain Names, and Respondent has not claimed to be commonly known by them.

 

With respect to Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, the evidence shows that the Disputed Domain Names have been used to promote and distribute software and tools relating to Snapchat and to direct users to download applications identified as "Snaptroid". Complainant contends, and Respondent has not rebutted with documentary evidence, that such software is unauthorized and competes with Complainant's official application. The Panel finds that use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's marks to promote unauthorized software does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services.

 

Respondent asserts, with respect to <snaptroid.ws>, that the domain name is intended to provide "independent utility" and that any referenced software is intended for legitimate personal or educational purposes, such as use by "caring parents wanting to check on kids." However, Respondent has not submitted documentary or technical evidence demonstrating that the software promoted on the associated Website functions in the manner described or operates in compliance with Complainant's policies and terms of service. Respondent has likewise not explained how such purported use justifies the selection and use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's marks.

 

With respect to Paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, the Panel finds no evidence that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Names. The Websites promote downloadable applications and are designed to attract Internet users interested in Complainant's services. Such use is commercial in nature and trades on the reputation of Complainant's marks.

 

Respondent has not addressed the remaining Disputed Domain Names and has not submitted evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in respect of them.

 

In view of the foregoing, the Panel finds that Respondent has failed to rebut Complainant's prima facie case and that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names within the meaning of Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Under Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, Complainant must establish that the Disputed Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith.

 

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a non-exhaustive list of circumstances which, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. These include, inter alia, circumstances indicating that a respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with a complainant's mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement. See Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

In the present case, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names with actual knowledge of Complainant, its Snapchat platform, and its SNAP and SNAPCHAT marks. Complainant's marks were well established and widely known long before the registration of the Disputed Domain Names in 2025. The Disputed Domain Names incorporate the dominant "snap" element of Complainant's marks and directly reference Complainant's services.

 

The evidence shows that the Websites expressly referred to Snapchat and promoted tools and software purportedly enabling users to access, monitor, or download Snapchat content. The Websites further made use of Complainant's branding elements, including the Ghost Logo and the Snapchat Yellow color scheme. These circumstances demonstrate that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant and deliberately targeted Complainant's platform and marks.

 

Respondent's own Response confirms such knowledge. Respondent expressly refers to Complainant, its trademarks, and its services and does not dispute that the Website associated with <snaptroid.ws> related to Snapchat.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent used the Disputed Domain Names to resolve to websites promoting downloadable applications and redirecting users to external download locations. Through this conduct, Respondent intentionally sought to attract Internet users seeking Complainant's services by creating a likelihood of confusion as to affiliation, sponsorship, or authorization. Such conduct falls within Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

 

The Panel further notes that, prior to disclosure of the registrant information in this proceeding, the Disputed Domain Names were registered through privacy or proxy services. The use of such services is not, in itself, indicative of bad faith. However, where privacy services are used in connection with domain names that resolve to websites trading on a complainant's trademark rights and engaging in misleading conduct, such use may support an inference of bad faith. In the present case, the Panel considers the use of privacy services, in combination with the confusing similarity of the Disputed Domain Names and the content of the associated Websites, to be a relevant factor in the overall assessment of Respondent's conduct.

 

The Panel also finds that Respondent's registration and use of multiple domain names incorporating variations of Complainant's marks supports an inference of a pattern of conduct designed to target Complainant's trademark rights.

 

Respondent asserts, with respect to <snaptroid.ws>, that the domain name was intended to provide "independent utility" and that any referenced software was intended for legitimate personal or educational purposes, such as use by "caring parents wanting to check on kids." However, Respondent has not submitted evidence demonstrating that the software operates in the manner described, complies with Complainant's terms of service, or does not interfere with Complainant's technical safeguards. Respondent has likewise not explained why such purported use required the registration and use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's marks.

 

Even if Respondent subjectively believed that the software could be used for benign purposes, this does not negate the objective circumstances showing that the Disputed Domain Names were used to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's marks.

 

The Panel further notes that Respondent has not provided any credible explanation for the use of Complainant's branding elements on the associated Websites, nor for the registration of multiple similar domain names referencing Complainant's marks.

 

Respondent's failure to address five of the six Disputed Domain Names and failure to rebut Complainant's evidence further supports an inference of bad faith registration and use.

 

Considering the totality of the circumstances, including Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant and its marks, the deliberate targeting of Complainant's platform, the content of the associated Websites, the use of privacy services in the context described above, and Respondent's failure to provide persuasive evidence of good-faith use, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith within the meaning of Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

 

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.ws>, <snaptroidhub.com>, <snaptroiddl.com>, <snaptroids.net>, <thesnaptroid.com> and  <snaptroid2.cc> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ivett Paulovics, Panelist

Dated: February 6, 2026