DECISION

 

PerceptionLabs, Inc. v. zhou yang / futianqu

Claim Number: FA2606002225441

 

PARTIES

Complainant is PerceptionLabs, Inc. ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Jonathan Uffelman of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, United States. Respondent is zhou yang / futianqu ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <snapcal.co>, registered with NameSilo, 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 E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

On June 5, 2026, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by email to Forum that the <snapcal.co> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, 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").

 

On June 8, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 29, 2026 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@snapcal.co. Also on June 8, 2026, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 June 30, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules, and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is a healthcare technology company that uses SNAPCALORIE in connection with a personal nutrition assistant platform. The platform includes an app, "SnapCalorie AI Calorie Counter," that enables users to upload a photo of a meal and receive an estimate of the meal's calories and overall nutrition. Complainant released this app on the Apple App Store and Google Play in 2023. Complainant states that the app reached 600,000 downloads by June 2025 and now has been downloaded approximately 1.4 million times and earned approximately $1.5 million in revenue. Complainant uses a website at the domain name <snapcalorie.com> to promote the app, with approximately 7 million views per year. Complainant owns two United States trademark registrations for SNAPCALORIE in standard character form, both issued in 2023.

 

The disputed domain name <snapcal.co> was registered in June 2025. The name is registered to Respondent, although Respondent's identity does not appear in a public domain name registration record. The domain name is being used for a website entitled "SnapCal" that promotes an app similar to Complainant's SnapCalorie app. (Both Complainant and Respondent's websites advertise the ability of their respective apps to "snap" a photo to obtain and log calorie information.)

 

Respondent's app appears on the Apple App Store under the name "SnapCal: AI Calorie Counter." Complainant submitted a request to Apple in September 2025 seeking to have the SnapCal app taken down based upon an allegation of trademark infringement. Apple appears to have contacted Respondent on several occasions in September and October 2025, seeking additional information. Complainant states that Respondent has not responded to either Complainant or Apple, although Respondent's app remains active on the Apple App Store.

 

Complainant states further that Respondent's similarly named app has caused actual confusion among consumers, providing evidence of complaints received from individuals who made purchases from Respondent mistakenly believing that they were purchasing Complainant's app. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <snapcal.co> is confusingly similar to its SNAPCALORIE mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. The Panel declines to enter findings on the other elements set forth in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for the reasons set forth below.

 

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 of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (version 3.1, 2026), available at https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <snapcal.co> incorporates Complainant's registered SNAPCALORIE trademark, truncating what is at least arguably the less distinctive portion of the mark by dropping the last four letters of "calorie," and appending the ".co" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Alaska Air Group, Inc. & its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (finding <alaskaair.co> confusingly similar to ALASKA AIRLINES); Express Messenger Systems, Inc. v. Golden State Overnight, D2001-0063 (WIPO Mar. 26, 2001) (finding <calovernight.com> confusingly similar to CALIFORNIA OVERNIGHT). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

Respondent is using the disputed domain name for a similar, competing app. While Respondent's use of "SnapCal" appears likely to be infringing, the Panel is reluctant to reach such a conclusion under the circumstances presented here. Respondent's app remains live on the Apple App Store more than nine months after Complainant's initial takedown request, and seems to enjoy a comparable level of popularity. (When the Apple App Store listings for the two apps were viewed by the Panel, Complainant's app was listed with 5.6K ratings and a rank of #195 among health and fitness apps, while Respondent's had 10K ratings and a rank of #153.) Furthermore, both the Apple App Store and Google Play feature numerous apps with names that include "SnapCal," suggesting the presence of a crowded field and casting some doubt on Complainant's infringement claim.

 

The Policy was designed to provide a streamlined administrative mechanism for resolving only a limited scope of disputes involving abusive domain name registrations, such as cybersquatting, and was not intended to adjudicate broader commercial or trademark disputes involving competing claims to rights or legitimate interests. See ARAG North America Inc. v. Steve Lowry, FA 2213883 (Forum May 20, 2026); AM General LLC v. Anything Example, FA 2143691 (Forum Mar. 28, 2025); Second Staff Report on Implementation Documents for the Uniform Domain Dispute Resolution Policy, § 4.1(c) (Oct. 24, 1999), available at https://archive.icann.org/en/udrp/udrp-second-staff-report-24oct99.htm.

 

In the Panel's view, this case involves a legitimate dispute properly relegated to a court or other appropriate forum. Furthermore, a decision here would not resolve the parties' broader dispute, which centers on the underlying app rather than the domain name being used to promote it. The Panel therefore declines to enter a finding as to Respondent's rights or legitimate interests.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

For essentially the same reasons as those set forth above, the Panel declines to enter a finding as to registration and use in bad faith.

 

DECISION

Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <snapcal.co> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: July 1, 2026