DECISION

 

Snap Inc. v. M Faisal

Claim Number: FA2606002230191

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Snap Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Ginger Mimier of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is M Faisal ("Respondent"), Pakistan.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <snapchatstoryviewer.com> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), 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.

 

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

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 30, 2026; Forum received payment on June 30, 2026.

 

On July 3, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <snapchatstoryviewer.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, which is in the English language, 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 July 7, 2026, following the Registrar's disclosure of the underlying registrant information.

 

On July 8, 2026, Forum served the Amended Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 28, 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@snapchatstoryviewer.com. Also on July 8, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On July 29, 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 formal response from Respondent.

 

Preliminary Issue: Respondent's Informal Correspondence

Although Respondent did not file a formal Response, Respondent corresponded with Forum by e-mail after the proceeding commenced, sending brief inquiries on July 9 and July 10, 2026, and writing on July 17, 2026 that Respondent was willing to discuss "a voluntary transfer of the domain as part of an amicable settlement" if Complainant would consider providing "reasonable compensation" for Respondent's claimed expenditure on the domain, web-tool development, website content, and search-engine optimization. These communications are not certified, do not address the substance of the Complaint, and do not comply with Rule 5; Forum did not treat them as a Response. The Panel has nonetheless considered the correspondence as part of the record in the exercise of its discretion under Rule 10. Because Respondent's expressed willingness to transfer the Disputed Domain Name is conditioned on a payment, it is not an unequivocal consent to transfer, and the Panel accordingly decides the Complaint on its merits.

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges:

 

That it owns and distributes the globally popular Snapchat camera and messaging application and storytelling platform (the "Snapchat App"), in continuous use since its launch in 2011. As of the end of the first quarter of 2026, the Snapchat App averaged 483 million daily active users and over 956 million monthly active users, and multiple prior UDRP panels have found the SNAPCHAT mark to be famous. The Snapchat App offers a feature called Stories, collections of "Snaps" that play in the order they were taken and disappear after 24 hours.

 

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. Complainant also owns numerous trademark registrations for its ghost design (the "Ghost Logo"), which has been in use as the Snapchat App icon since 2011, and U.S. Reg. No. 5,357,726 for the color yellow as used in connection with its software ("Snapchat Yellow").

 

That the Disputed Domain Name <snapchatstoryviewer.com> is confusingly similar to the SNAPCHAT Mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, adding only the descriptive or generic terms "story" and "viewer" and the gTLD ".com," none of which distinguishes the Disputed Domain Name from the mark.

 

That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. There is no relationship between the parties; Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use the SNAPCHAT Mark, the Ghost Logo, or Snapchat Yellow; and nothing in the WHOIS information suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. The website resolving from the Disputed Domain Name uses Complainant's branding to offer a purported anonymous "Snapchat Story Viewer & Downloader" tool that allows users to view and download Snapchat Stories off the Snapchat platform, in violation of Complainant's Terms of Service and to the detriment of the privacy and security of Snapchat users. Such use is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

 

That Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith, with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights: the Disputed Domain Name was registered on October 4, 2025, long after the SNAPCHAT Mark became famous, and the resolving website makes extensive use of Complainant's branding. Respondent's operation of a tool for downloading Snapchat Stories in violation of Complainant's Terms of Service, Respondent's offer in pre-Complaint correspondence to sell the domain for compensation for claimed investments, and the registration of the Disputed Domain Name through a privacy service further evidence bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. Respondent's July 17, 2026 e-mail to Forum requesting "reasonable compensation" in exchange for a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name is addressed in the Preliminary Issue section above.

FINDINGS

The Panel finds the following:

 

The registration records in evidence show that Complainant owns numerous United States and foreign trademark registrations for the SNAPCHAT Mark, together with registrations for the Ghost Logo and U.S. Reg. No. 5,357,726 for Snapchat Yellow. The record further shows that the Snapchat App has been distributed under the SNAPCHAT Mark since 2011 and that, by the end of the first quarter of 2026, it averaged 483 million daily active users and over 956 million monthly active users. Prior UDRP panels have found the SNAPCHAT Mark famous, and the evidence in the record of the mark's longevity, scale of use, and sustained media recognition supports the same conclusion here.

 

The WHOIS record shows that the Disputed Domain Name was registered on October 4, 2025, some fourteen years after Complainant's first use of the SNAPCHAT Mark. The Registrar's verification of July 3, 2026 identifies Respondent, M Faisal of Lahore, Pakistan, as the registrant. The Disputed Domain Name was registered through a privacy service; the Registrar disclosed the underlying registrant information only after the Complaint was filed, and Complainant thereupon amended the Complaint to name Respondent.

 

Screenshots in the record show that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website (the "Respondent's Website") headed "Snapchat Story Viewer & Downloader [2026]." The Respondent's Website displays the SNAPCHAT Mark throughout, uses the Ghost Logo, including as the site's browser icon, and adopts a yellow-and-black color scheme; it prompts users to enter a Snapchat username and promotes the ability to view public Snapchat Stories anonymously, without logging in, and to download and archive that content. The Respondent's Website itself acknowledges that "Snapchat even prohibits third-party 'stealth' apps in its Terms of Service." Complainant's Terms of Service, which appear in the record, prohibit copying, downloading, or archiving content on the Services, the use of automated means to scrape or extract content, and third-party applications that interact with the Services without Complainant's written consent.

 

The correspondence in the record shows that Complainant's counsel sent Respondent a cease-and-desist letter on November 12, 2025. Respondent replied on December 1, 2025, describing the website as a "tool-based interface" for interacting with content publicly available on Snapchat's servers. On January 1, 2026, Respondent offered to sell the domain and website to Complainant, stating that Respondent had "spent a significant amount on the domain, website development, tool development, SEO, and other related work" and asking to be compensated for those investments. Respondent renewed that request in the July 17, 2026 e-mail to Forum.

 

On the uncontested record, Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant, has not been authorized to use the SNAPCHAT Mark, the Ghost Logo, or Snapchat Yellow, and is not commonly known by the Disputed 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.

 

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a formal 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 its numerous trademark registrations in the United States and elsewhere, together with extensive and continuous use of the mark since 2011. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.2.1.

 

The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the SNAPCHAT Mark in its entirety, adding only the terms "story" and "viewer," which are descriptive of the very Stories feature of the Snapchat App at which the Respondent's Website is directed, and the gTLD ".com." These additions do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See Snap Inc. v. Addison Mikkelson, FA 1942257 (Forum May 19, 2021) (finding <snapchatviewer.com>, which added the generic term "viewer" and the ".com" gTLD to the wholly incorporated SNAPCHAT mark, confusingly similar under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); Snap Inc. v. juba maltra / Imazighen, FA 2195286 (Forum Jan. 14, 2026) (use of a mark in its entirety in a domain name allows a finding of confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy). The gTLD is disregarded in the comparison under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.11.1.

 

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

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, Complainant bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name; the burden of production then shifts to Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or interests. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 2.1.

 

Complainant has made the required prima facie showing. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "M Faisal," a name bearing no resemblance to the Disputed Domain Name, and nothing in the record suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Snap Inc. v. Avnish Chauhan, FA 2155188 (Forum June 13, 2025) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where nothing in the WHOIS information suggested the respondent was commonly known by the infringing domain name). Nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the SNAPCHAT Mark, the Ghost Logo, or Snapchat Yellow.

 

Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name 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). The Respondent's Website deploys Complainant's own branding to offer a tool whose function is to enable the anonymous viewing, scraping, and downloading of content from Complainant's platform, in circumvention of the platform's design and in violation of Complainant's Terms of Service, and its operation puts the privacy and security of Snapchat users at risk, in that Stories intended to disappear after 24 hours can be stored and later used for unauthorized purposes by third parties. Panels have held, on materially identical facts involving this Complainant, that such use confers no rights or legitimate interests. See Snap Inc. v. Jahanzaib khan / Zhaoliang Meng, FA 2115153 (Forum Sept. 18, 2024) (no rights or legitimate interests where the respondent's websites scraped content from the Snapchat platform and offered users the ability to download it in violation of the complainant's Terms of Service); Snap Inc. v. Ronald Linco, FA 2085096 (Forum Apr. 4, 2024) (use of <snap-down.com> to offer a video downloader tool to scrape content from the Snapchat platform was not a bona fide offering of goods or services).

 

Respondent has not rebutted Complainant's prima facie case. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

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

 

First, Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights. The Disputed Domain Name was registered long after the SNAPCHAT Mark had become famous, and the Respondent's Website is devoted entirely to Snapchat content, reproducing the SNAPCHAT Mark, the Ghost Logo, and a yellow color scheme evoking Snapchat Yellow. See Snap Inc. v. MD MONARUL ISLAM, FA 2053482 (Forum Aug. 9, 2023) (registration of a domain name many years after the SNAPCHAT mark had become famous worldwide sufficed 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 offering unauthorized services related to the complainant's business demonstrated actual knowledge and bad faith); see also WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 3.1.4. This Panel recently found the SNAPCHAT Mark famous in Snap Inc. v. kakd jsjs, FA 2224812 (Forum July 3, 2026).

 

Second, Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name to attract Internet users to the Respondent's Website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the SNAPCHAT Mark as to source, sponsorship, or affiliation. Respondent's own correspondence describes a significant investment in the website's development and search-engine visibility for which Respondent sought compensation, supporting the inference that the website was operated for commercial gain. This use, in violation of Complainant's Terms of Service as found above, disrupts Complainant's business and trades on the goodwill of the SNAPCHAT Mark in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv). See Snap Inc. v. Ronald Linco, FA 2085096 (Forum Apr. 4, 2024) (finding bad faith on materially similar facts).

 

Third, Respondent has twice conditioned a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name on payment extending beyond any out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name itself: on January 1, 2026, in response to the cease-and-desist correspondence, and again in the July 17, 2026 e-mail to Forum, Respondent sought compensation for claimed development and search-optimization expenditures. A request for consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Airbnb, Inc. v. Leivur Justinussen, FA 1873499 (Forum Dec. 27, 2019) (a respondent's counteroffer in excess of out-of-pocket costs is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i)).

 

Finally, Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name through a privacy service, and the underlying registrant was disclosed only after the Complaint was filed. In the context of the other indicia of bad faith found above, Respondent's use of a privacy service lends further, corroborative support to the finding of bad faith. See Microsoft Corporation v. Arif Khan, FA 1907105 (Forum Aug. 31, 2020) (respondent's use of a WHOIS privacy service, in the context of the case, further supported a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name 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 <snapchatstoryviewer.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated: July 29, 2026