NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

DECISION

Google LLC v. Polyakov Andrey

Claim Number: FA2602002203651

PARTIES

Complainant is Google LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Griffin Barnett of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Polyakov Andrey ("Respondent"), Ukraine.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <snapseed-app.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

PANEL

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

Dr. Katalin Szamosi as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 4, 2026; Forum received payment on February 4, 2026.

On February 5, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <snapseed-app.com> 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 February 5, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 25, 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@snapseed-app.com. Also on February 5, 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 25, 2026.

Complainant submitted an Additional Submission on February 26, 2026

On February 26, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Katalin Szamosi 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The Complainant is Google, which was ranked by Forbes the second most-valuable brand globally in 2020, and Brand Finance ranked Google as the third most-valuable brand in 2025. Complainant is a global company, with offices throughout North America, Europe, Latin America, Asia Pacific, Africa, and the Middle East. Google provides a wide range of goods and services, including its famous search engine, cloud computing, and various technology and software offerings. Complainant contends that the SNAPSEED Mark is a coined term that was created by Nik Software in June 2011 for a photo-editing application that enables users to enhance photos and apply digital filters. Since that time, the SNAPSEED Mark has been prominently featured in the media and in marketing materials. The Complainant acquired Snapseed and the SNAPSEED Marks in September 2012.

Complainant sent a demand letter to Respondent on January 15, 2026, requesting that Respondent transfer the <snapseed-app.com> domain name to Complainant. Despite Complainant's follow-up letter, the Complainant received no response from Respondent.

Complainant asserts that Respondent is a serial cybersquatter who has lost at least 29 prior UDRP cases covering at least 66 domain names. See United Parcel Service of America, Inc. v. Polyakov Andrey, FA 1954233 (Forum Aug. 6, 2021); Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Polyakov Andrey, FA 1957591 (Forum Sept. 7, 2021); Duck Duck Go, Inc. v. Polyakov Andrey, FA 1972748 (Forum Dec. 9, 2021); United Parcel Service of America, Inc. v. Polyakov Andrey, FA 1973589 (Forum Dec. 28, 2021); Dell Inc. v. Polyakov Andrey, FA 1985542 (Forum March 24, 2022); Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Polyakov Andrey, FA 1987902 (Forum April 11, 2022); United Parcel Service of America, Inc. v. Polyakov Andrey, FA 1993877 (Forum May 26, 2022); Duck Duck Go, Inc. v. Polyakov Andrey, FA 1999765 (Forum July 11, 2022); Credit Karma, LLC v. Polyakov Andrey, FA 2003287 (Forum Aug. 2, 2022); TechSmith Corporation v. Polyakov Andrey, FA 2002722 (Forum Aug. 2, 2022); Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Polyakov Andrey, FA 2011179 (Forum Oct. 10, 2022); Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Polyakov Andrey, FA 2026823 (Forum Feb. 3, 2023); Duck Duck Go, Inc. v. Polyakov Andrey, FA 2026617 (Forum Feb. 13, 2023); Ceridian Dayforce Corporation v. Polyakov Andrey, FA 2041166 (Forum May 22, 2023); Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Polyakov Andrey, FA 2041795 (Forum May 23, 2023); Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Polyakov Andrey, FA 2045080 (Forum June 20, 2023); Poshmark, Inc. v. Polyakov Andrey, FA 2049028 (Forum July 19, 2023); Poshmark, Inc. v. Polyakov Andrey, FA 2049025 (Forum July 19, 2023); Duck Duck Go, Inc. v. Polyakov Andrey, FA 2051627 (Forum Aug. 4, 2023); Bitwarden, Inc. v. Polyakov Andrey, FA 2053490 (Forum Aug. 8, 2023); Workday, Inc. v. Polyakov Andrey, FA 2063696 (Forum Oct. 19, 2023); Yahoo Inc. v. Polyakov Andrey, FA 2063795 (Forum Oct. 20, 2023); Workday, Inc. v. Polyakov Andrey, FA 2076751 (Forum Jan. 20, 2024); Workday, Inc. v. Polyakov Andrey, FA 2083952 (Forum March 13, 2024); AOL Media LLC v. Polyakov Andrey, FA 2088052 (Forum April 3, 2024); Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Polyakov Andrey, FA 2095485 (Forum June 5, 2024); Ceridian Dayforce Corporation v. Polyakov Andrey, FA 2105618 (Forum Aug. 7, 2024); Workday, Inc. v. Polyakov Andrey, FA 2114853 (Forum Oct. 3, 2024); Workday, Inc. v. Polyakov Andrey, FA 2125134 (Forum Dec. 13, 2024).

1. Complainant argues that under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) Respondent's <snapseed-app.com> domain name (hereinafter referred to as "Disputed Domain Name") is identical to Complainant's SNAPSEED Marks. In support of this Complainant asserts that;

· Complainant owns numerous registrations for the SNAPSEED word mark in the United States and globally, dating back to as early as 2011;

· The Complainant filed under Exhibit E examples of active trademark registrations for the SNAPSEED Marks (hereinafter referred to as: "SNAPSEED Marks");

· Most of the SNAPSEED Marks have priority filing dates and claim first use in commerce dates as early as 2011;

· Complainant has both registered and common law rights that predate the registration date of the Disputed Domain Name;

· As a result of extensive marketing and press coverage, Complainant's SNAPSEED Marks have become well-known and consumers associate the marks exclusively with Complainant and its offering;

· The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SNAPSEED Marks, as it wholly incorporates the SNAPSEED Marks, followed by a hyphen and the descriptive term "app" in reference to Complainant's Snapseed mobile application, followed by the ".com" TLD;

· The widespread popularity of Complainant's SNAPSEED offering and the fact that SNAPSEED is fully incorporated in the Disputed Domain Name will cause users to mistakenly believe the Disputed Domain Name originates from, is associated with, or is sponsored by Complainant;

· The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SNAPSEED Marks.

2. Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights and legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). In support of this Complainant asserts that

· Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use the SNAPSEED Marks;

· Unlicensed, unauthorized use of a third-party trademark in a domain is strong evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name;

· Whois records do not suggest that Respondent is known as Snapseed;

· Respondent has not used and is not using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use;

· Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a commercial website that masks itself as a "fan" site that includes several links purportedly to download Google's Snapseed software that instead resolve to unaffiliated third-party software posing potential malware concerns;

· Respondent also monetizes the website through their use of clickthrough advertising for Respondent's own commercial gain;

· There can be no rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) when respondent was on notice that a complainant possesses strong trademark rights in a mark identical or similar to the disputed domain name;

· Complainant first began using and creating rights in the SNAPSEED Marks many years before Respondent registered and began using the Disputed Domain Name;

· Respondent's references to SNAPSEED Marks and services clearly demonstrate that Respondent was aware of Complainant's rights when the Disputed Domain Name was registered.

3. Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). In support of this Complainant contends that

· The evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that Respondent opportunistically registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.

· The notoriety and distinctive qualities of the SNAPSEED Marks and the content on Respondent's website render it wholly implausible that Respondent independently and innocently registered the Disputed Domain Name;

· Disputed Domain Name includes "blog posts" that are possibly generated by artificial intelligence, and is replete with click-through advertisements to monetize the website;

· Respondent is a serial cybersquatter who has lost at least 29 UDRP cases covering at least 66 domain names.

· The decisions in the previous UDRP cases further support a finding of bad faith in this proceeding;

· Respondent's use of a proxy service to hide its actual registration information is further evidence of bad faith;

· Respondent's failure to respond to Complainant's communications is further evidence of Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name;

B. Respondent

The Respondent asserts that the website associated with the Disputed Domain Name is intended and operated as a fan/informational website (hereinafter referred to as: "Website") created by users of the Snapseed application for other users/fans.

The Respondent argues that the Website contains content such as (i) impressions and commentary about use of the application, (ii) descriptions of changes/updates in the application and (iii) informational articles about similar applications and alternatives.

The Respondent contends that the Website includes statements clarifying that it is not an official website and that it is a fan-created resource.

Respondent doesn't intend to impersonate Complainant or mislead users into believing the site is an official Google/Snapseed property.

Respondent refutes that the Website hosts pirated copies of the Snapseed application and does not force or require users to download software from Respondent.

Respondent contends that external links on the Website are to third-party resources.

Respondent disputes Complainant's characterization that the Website is operated for advertising revenue or click-through monetization.

C. Additional Submissions

Complainant argues in its additional submission that

· Respondent falsely claims that their Website is intended and operated as a fan and informational Website discussing Complainant's Snapseed application and related topics, and that Respondent has attempted to make clear that the site is unofficial and fan-created;

· Respondent falsely purports to offer the Snapseed application for download directly on the Website via links that actually resolve to unaffiliated third-party software;

· Respondent inundates the Website with click-through advertisements for profit;

· Any use of the site to host "blog" style content is clearly a mere façade for Respondent's bad faith cybersquatting and monetization effort;

· Respondent admits that the external links on Website that instruct users to download the Snapseed application resolve to third party "resources," but claims that Respondent does not intentionally direct users to unauthorized or pirated versions of Complainant's Snapseed application;

· Respondent falsely claims that their Website is "not operated as a monetized advertising project and does not use advertising systems for commercial gain.";

· Complainant reiterates that Respondent is a serial cybersquatter who has lost dozens of prior cases under the Policy;

· Respondent's defense here is simply not credible and is a clear post-hoc rationalization for their illegitimate bad faith activity.

FINDINGS

For the reasons set out below the Panel finds for Complainant and orders a transfer of the <snapseed-app.com> 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.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant asserts rights in the SNAPSEED Marks through its registration of the mark with the USPTO and foreign trademark offices. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is generally sufficient in demonstrating rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)." See Nintendo of America Inc. v. lin amy, FA 1818485 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO trademark registration for the NINTENDO mark evidences Complainant's rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Here the Complainant submitted evidence for numerous trademarks protecting the SNAPSEED Marks with the USPTO and foreign trademark offices. The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the SNAPSEED Marks under Policy 4(a)(i).

Complainant argues that Respondent's Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's SNAPSEED Marks. Complainant contends that (i) Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SNAPSEED Marks because it contains the SNAPSEED Marks in its entirety; (ii) the addition of the descriptive term "app" does nothing to differentiate the Disputed Domain Name from Complainant's SNAPSEED Marks and (iii) the inclusion of the gTLD ".com" in the Disputed Domain Name does not change the conclusion that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SNAPSEED Marks. The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name incorporates SNAPSEED Marks in its entirety, the only differences between the SNAPSEED Marks and the Disputed Domain Name are (a) the addition of a descriptive term and (b) the addition of the ".com" gTLD, which does not sufficiently distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Klein Tools, Inc. v chenxinqi, FA 1617328 (Forum July 6, 2018) ("The Panel agrees that misspellings such as omission of a letter do not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's KLEIN TOOLS trade mark pursuant to the Policy."). Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."). Generally, under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) adding the".com" gTLD can be disregarded when analyzing the confusing similarity. Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. v. Jerry Guess, FA 2002904 (Forum Aug. 23, 2022) ("UDRP Panels have unanimously accepted that the inclusion of the ".com" gTLD in a disputed domain name may be disregarded in analyzing whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in which Complainant asserts rights."). Therefore, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical with the SNAPSEED Marks per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

The Panel accordingly finds that Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name to then enable the burden to, in effect, shift to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.

Complainant asserts Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use its SNAPSEED Marks in the Disputed Domain Name. See Marvell Asia Pte, Ltd. v. awais hamid / 700hosting, FA 2001261 (Forum July 19, 2022) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), relevant WHOIS Information may demonstrate that a Respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name, while a lack of evidence affirming otherwise may affirm a Complainant's assertion that it never authorized or licensed Respondent to use its mark in a disputed domain name."). Recharge, Inc. v. Kennan Davison / Jiki, Inc., FA 2003712 (Forum Aug. 15, 2022) ("The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as 'Jika Inc./ Kennan Davison.' Complainant further asserts that it has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use Complainant's RECHARGE mark. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).").

Additionally, lack of authorization to use a Complainant's mark may indicate that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. See PragmaticPlay Limited v. Robert Chris, FA 1932464 (Forum Mar. 23, 2021) ("The WHOIS information of record lists the registrant as "Robert Chris," and no other information of record suggests Respondent is commonly known by the domain name. Here, the WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "Polyakov Andrey". Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

Additionally, Complainant asserts that Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name.

Respondent argues in defense that (i) he is using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with operating a fan/informational Website, (ii) does not force or require users to download software and (iii) external links on the Website are to third-party resources.

The Panel here refers to Section 2.7.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions ("WIPO Overview 3.1") provides the following:

"Where a domain name that is identical to a trademark (i.e., <trademark.tld>) is being used in relation to a genuine fan site, panels have tended to find that a general right to operate a fan or informational site (even one that is supportive of the mark owner) does not extend to registering or using a domain name that is identical to the complainant's trademark, particularly as such an impersonation of the domain name may be misunderstood by Internet users as being somehow sponsored or endorsed by the trademark owner."

The Panel notes the consensus view reflected in section 2.7.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.1 and applies it to the present case. Even if the Disputed Domain Name would host a genuine fan site, it should not be identical to the SNAPSEED Marks. The Respondent's defence that (i) he does not force or require users to download software and (ii) the external links on the Website lead to third-party resources carries little weight, as it does not refute the fact that the Website promotes the download of software that may raise potential malware concerns. The Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent is a serial cybersquatter coupled with the fact that the Website includes several links to download software from unaffiliated third-party makes the entire defense of the Respondent without merit.

The claim that the Website contains statements that it is not an official website doesn't alleviate the concern in this case. See Avnet, Inc. v. Milen Radumilo, FA 1970669 (Forum Dec. 3, 2021) ("Complainant provides screenshots showing the disputed domain name at times redirected users to parked webpages with competing hyperlinks and at other times redirected users to a website that prompts users to download malware. The Panel finds that Respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii) and Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name.").

Complainant argues that Respondent also monetizes the Website through their use of clickthrough advertising for Respondent's own commercial gain and provide evidence thereof under Exhibit F. See Indeed, Inc. v. Daniel Wood / dc motors & co, FA 1798578 (Forum Sept. 3, 2018) ("Complainant contends and has submitted evidence that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to generate click-through revenue from hyperlinks and advertisements for Complainant's competitors.… Use of a disputed domain name to feature competing hyperlinks/advertisements 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 finds, therefore, that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).").

The Panel finds that using the Disputed Domain Name for clickthrough advertising is suggestive of failure to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

The Panel accordingly finds that Complainant has satisfied the second element of the Policy since Respondent has failed to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent also monetizes the Website through their use of clickthrough advertising. See Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi, FA 721969 (Forum July 18, 2006) ("Complainant claims that Respondent's domain name resolves to a commercial search engine page that displays links to various third-party websites, some of which resolve to the websites of Complainant's competitors in the film business. Complainant also claims that Respondent is earning "click-through fees" for each consumer that follows the links on Respondent's website. Respondent is profiting from the goodwill associated with Complainant's ZEE CINEMA mark by redirecting Internet users seeking Complainant's goods and services to Respondent's own website for commercial gain. Therefore, Respondent has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). The Panel finds that using the Disputed Domain Name for clickthrough advertising is evidence of bad faith registration.

Complainant asserts that Respondent is a serial cybersquatter who has lost at least 29 prior UDRP cases covering at least 66 domain names. The Respondent has not rebutted Complainant assertion that he is a serial cybersquatter. See Westcoast Contempo Fashions Ltd. v. Manila Indus., Inc., FA 814312 (Forum Nov. 29, 2006) ("The Complainant alleges that Respondent has been the subject of numerous UDRP proceedings in which panels have ordered Respondent to transfer a disputed domain name.… The Panel finds that Respondent has demonstrated a pattern of registering domain names containing others' marks in order to prevent these parties from reflecting their marks in domain names, and that such conduct is prohibited under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)."). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's numerous former UDRP cases support registration in bad faith in the instant case under Policy.

The Panel accordingly finds that Complainant has satisfied the third and final element 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 <snapseed-app.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

Dr. Katalin Szamosi, Panelist

Dated: March 12, 2026