DECISION

 

Snap Inc. v. kakd jsjs

Claim Number: FA2606002224812

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Snap Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Ginger Mimier of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is kakd jsjs ("Respondent"), Hong Kong.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain names at issue are <snapchat.one> and <snapchat99.org> (the "Disputed Domain Names"), registered with Dynadot LLC.

 

PANEL

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

 

David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 2, 2026; Forum received payment on June 2, 2026.

 

On June 5, 2026, Dynadot LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <snapchat.one> and <snapchat99.org> domain names are registered with Dynadot LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Dynadot LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot LLC 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").

 

Complainant submitted an Amended Complaint on June 10, 2026, following the Registrar's disclosure of the underlying registrant information.

 

On June 11, 2026, Forum served the Amended Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 1, 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@snapchat.one and postmaster@snapchat99.org. Also on June 11, 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.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On July 2, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider 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.

 

Preliminary Issue: Consolidation of Multiple Domain Names

The Complaint concerns two domain names. 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." The Registrar has confirmed that both Disputed Domain Names are registered to the same registrant, "kakd jsjs," using identical contact information; the record further shows that the two Disputed Domain Names share a common IP address, were registered on the same date, and resolve to substantively identical websites. The Disputed Domain Names being registered by the same domain name holder, the Panel finds that their consolidation in this single proceeding is proper under Rule 3(c).

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges:

 

That it owns and distributes the globally renowned SNAPCHAT camera and messaging application and storytelling platform, available for both the iOS and Android operating systems (the "Snapchat App"), which has been in continuous use since its launch in 2011. As of the end of the first quarter of 2026, the Snapchat App had, on average, 483 million daily active users and over 956 million monthly active users. Multiple prior UDRP Panels have found the SNAPCHAT mark to be famous.

 

That Complainant owns numerous United States and foreign trademark registrations for the SNAPCHAT mark (the "SNAPCHAT Mark"), each of which remains valid and in full force and effect, and also owns numerous trademark registrations for its ghost design (the "Ghost Logo"), which has been in use as the Snapchat App icon since the app was launched in 2011.

 

That the Disputed Domain Names <snapchat.one> and <snapchat99.org> are each confusingly similar to the SNAPCHAT Mark because they incorporate the mark in its entirety. The addition of the number "99" in <snapchat99.org> does not sufficiently distinguish that domain name from the SNAPCHAT Mark, and the gTLDs ".one" and ".org" are to be disregarded for purposes of the confusing-similarity analysis.

 

That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. Complainant has no relationship with Respondent and has never authorized Respondent to use the SNAPCHAT Mark or the Ghost Logo. Nothing in the WHOIS record suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names; rather, Respondent identifies itself as "kakd jsjs." The websites resolving from the Disputed Domain Names are styled as the "Snapchat Chinese website," purport to offer downloads of the official Snapchat app, display the Ghost Logo without authorization, and list the Disputed Domain Names as "Snapchat's official website address," passing the websites off as official websites of Complainant. Such use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

That Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith. Respondent acquired the Disputed Domain Names on or about March 13, 2025, long after the SNAPCHAT Mark became famous. Respondent's use of the SNAPCHAT Mark and the Ghost Logo on the resolving websites, together with the websites' false presentation of themselves as Complainant's official Chinese website, demonstrates that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights and registered the Disputed Domain Names to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the SNAPCHAT Mark. Respondent also registered the Disputed Domain Names through a privacy service. This conduct constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv).

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Snap Inc., is the owner of the famous SNAPCHAT Mark, used in connection with its widely popular camera and messaging application since its launch in 2011. Complainant owns numerous United States and foreign trademark registrations for the SNAPCHAT Mark, and multiple prior UDRP panels have found the SNAPCHAT Mark to be famous. As of the first quarter of 2026, the Snapchat App had, on average, 483 million daily active users and over 956 million monthly active users worldwide. Complainant is also the owner of registrations for the Ghost Logo, which has served as the Snapchat App icon since 2011.

 

Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name <snapchat99.org> on March 13, 2025, long after the SNAPCHAT Mark became famous. The Disputed Domain Name <snapchat.one> was first created in 2015 but was allowed to lapse and expired in 2024; the WHOIS and name-server history establishes that the present Respondent acquired it on or about March 13, 2025, the same date on which <snapchat99.org> was registered. Each Disputed Domain Name resolves to a substantively identical website (the "Respondent's Website") styled as the "Snapchat Chinese website" that purports to provide file-download options for the official Snapchat app.

 

The Respondent's Website prominently displays Complainant's Ghost Logo without authorization and lists the Disputed Domain Names as "Snapchat's official website address." Although the purported download links do not trigger an actual file download, they resolve to a page that prompts users to scan a QR code to join a chat group described as the "Snapchat official discussion group." Through the repeated and prominent use of the SNAPCHAT Mark and the Ghost Logo, the Respondent's Website is made to appear as an official website of Complainant, when in fact there is no connection between Respondent and Complainant.

 

The Registrar-supplied WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "kakd jsjs." There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names or by SNAPCHAT or any similar name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not licensed or authorized to use the SNAPCHAT Mark or the Ghost Logo. The Disputed Domain Names were registered through a privacy service, and the underlying registrant was disclosed by the Registrar only after Complainant filed its Complaint.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

 

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Overview 3.1 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 established rights in the SNAPCHAT Mark through numerous trademark registrations in the United States and abroad, as well as through extensive and continuous use of the mark since 2011.

 

Each of the Disputed Domain Names incorporates the SNAPCHAT Mark in its entirety. The domain name <snapchat.one> consists of the SNAPCHAT Mark and the gTLD ".one," and is therefore identical to the mark but for the gTLD. The domain name <snapchat99.org> adds only the number "99" and the gTLD ".org"; the addition of a number to a wholly incorporated mark does not avoid confusing similarity. See Snap Inc. v. Ranwa Prodo, FA 2056736 (Forum Sept. 5, 2023) (finding <snapchat1.com> confusingly similar to the SNAPCHAT mark). The gTLDs ".one" and ".org" are irrelevant to the confusing-similarity analysis under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.11.1.

 

The Panel finds that each of the Disputed Domain Names is confusingly similar to Complainant's SNAPCHAT Mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, Complainant carries the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. Once such a prima facie case is made, the burden shifts to Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of rights or legitimate interests. Where, as here, Respondent fails to do so, Complainant is deemed to have satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 2.1.

 

Complainant has made the required prima facie showing. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the SNAPCHAT Mark or the Ghost Logo in any manner, and nothing in the WHOIS information or otherwise in the record suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Respondent identifies itself as "kakd jsjs," which bears no resemblance to the Disputed Domain Names. See Snap Inc. v. Ahmad Flemming, FA 1809794 (Forum Nov. 8, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where nothing in the WHOIS record indicated the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Nor is Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Names a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). The Respondent's Website prominently displays Complainant's Ghost Logo, is styled as the "Snapchat Chinese website," and lists the Disputed Domain Names as "Snapchat's official website address," passing the website off as an official website of Complainant in order to divert Internet users seeking Complainant. Using a domain name to pass a website off as that of the trademark owner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Broadcom Corp. v. shenzhen / Billy, FA 1528945 (Forum Dec. 19, 2013) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the disputed domain name resolved to an unauthorized Chinese-language translation of the complainant's website). The use of a domain name to pass oneself off as another can never confer rights or legitimate interests. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 2.13.1.

 

Respondent has failed to rebut Complainant's prima facie case. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith for the following reasons.

 

First, Respondent acquired the Disputed Domain Names on or about March 13, 2025, many years after Complainant first used the SNAPCHAT Mark in 2011 and long after the mark became famous worldwide. The prominent display of Complainant's SNAPCHAT Mark and Ghost Logo on the Respondent's Website, and the presentation of that website as Complainant's official "Snapchat Chinese website," demonstrate that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights when it registered the Disputed Domain Names. See Snap Inc. v. MD MONARUL ISLAM, FA 2053482 (Forum Aug. 9, 2023) (finding registration of the <snapchat.mobi> domain name many years after the SNAPCHAT mark became famous sufficient to establish that the respondent was fully aware of the mark); Snap Inc. v. Muhammad Faisal Nauman Zafar, FA 2065903 (Forum Nov. 8, 2023) (use of the SNAPCHAT mark and the Ghost Logo on a website demonstrated the respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's rights and bad faith).

 

Second, Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Names to attract Internet users to the Respondent's Website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the SNAPCHAT Mark as to the source, sponsorship, or affiliation of that website, and to divert users seeking Complainant's official app. This conduct disrupts Complainant's business and trades upon the goodwill of the SNAPCHAT Mark for Respondent's benefit, constituting bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv). See Spike's Holding, LLC v. finishlinefactory-online-sale.com, FA 1747085 (Forum Oct. 12, 2017) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent hosted a website that duplicated the complainant's mark and logo, giving every appearance of being associated or affiliated with the complainant's business).

 

Third, Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names through a privacy service, concealing its identity until the Registrar disclosed the underlying registrant after the Complaint was filed. In the context of the other indicia of bad faith present here, Respondent's use of a privacy service provides further support for a finding of bad faith. See 7-Eleven, Inc. v. Aaron Burns, FA 2145979 (Forum Apr. 15, 2025) (finding bad faith may be inferred where, among other factors, the respondent used a privacy service); ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH GMBH v. Adriel Gefter, FA 2146267 (Forum Apr. 23, 2025) (respondent's use of a privacy service to hide its identity is an indication of bad faith).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith under 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 <snapchat.one> and <snapchat99.org> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated: July 3, 2026