Snapchataccounts.com, Snapchataccountshop.com

The timeline behind snapchataccounts.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Snap Inc. v. Joseph Marvin Claim Number: FA2501002134265 PARTIES Complainant is Snap Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Dennis L. Wilson of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Joseph Marvin ("Respondent"), Michigan, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <snapchataccounts.com> and <snapchataccountshop.com>, 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. Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 8, 2025; Forum received payment on January 8, 2025. On January 9, 2025, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <snapchataccounts.com> and <snapchataccountshop.com> domain names are registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 January 10, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 30, 2025 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@snapchataccounts.com, postmaster@snapchataccountshop.com. Also on January 10, 2025, 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 January 31, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant asserts trademark rights in SNAPCHAT. Complainant holds national registrations for that trademark. Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that: 1. Complainant offers a camera and messaging application by reference to the trademark, SNAPCHAT; 2. the trademark, SNAPCHAT, is registered as, inter alia, United States Patent & Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 4,971,934, registered June 7, 2016; 3. the disputed domain names were registered on July 11, 2020, and currently resolve to Registrar parked pages; 4. the <snapchataccounts.com> name previously resolved to a website which used the trademark and carried the banner - "Boost Your Snapscore Today" - offering to increase the benefits of users of Complainant's messaging application in exchange for payment; 5. the <snapchataccountshop.com> name has not been used; and 6. in response to Complainant's letter demanding, inter alia, transfer of the domain names, Respondent requested USD1,700.00 - later reduced to USD900.00 - compensation for registering, renewing and otherwise maintaining the domain names. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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, for example, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; 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 Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003)). Complainant provides evidence of its registration of the trademark SNAPCHAT with the USPTO, a national trademark authority. The disputed domain names take the trademark and add descriptive terms and the generic top-level-domain name ("gTLD"), ".com". The gTLD can be disregarded for the purposes of comparison (see, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) and the added terms are non-distinctive and leave the trademark wholly recognisable (see, for example, 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."); Snap Inc. v. Addison Mikkelson, FA2104001942257 (Forum May 19, 2021) finding <snapchatviewer.com> and Complainant's mark confusing similarity; Snap Inc. v. Malkam Dior, FA1707001741274 (Forum Aug. 28, 2017) finding <snapchatdrones.com> confusingly similar to the SNAPCHAT mark). The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. The Panel accordingly finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy: (i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000‑0624). The domain name holder is "Joseph Marvin". There is no suggestion that Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain names, or that Respondent has any trademark rights. Furthermore, for the purposes of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy and despite some earlier use of one of the names, the disputed domain names currently resolve to parked pages with no relevant content and can be treated as not in use. Without evidence of use or some other indicia of entitlement, the Panel finds that Respondent has not shown a right or interest in the domain names (see, for example, Morgan Stanley v. Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine Llc, FA 1785347 (Forum June 8, 2018) ("Inactive holding of a domain name does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."); Kohler Co. v xi long chen, FA 1737910 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) ("Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain. Respondent's <kohler-corporation.com> resolves to an inactive webpage displaying the message "website coming soon!")). The onus shifts to Respondent and in the absence of a Response, Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or interests and so finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith and used in bad faith. Further guidance on that requirement is found in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, which sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established. The four specified circumstances are: "(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to respondent's website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the site or location." The Panel finds that paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy has direct application to the <snapchataccounts.com> name. The Panel has already found confusingly similarity. Further, as explained above, the resolving website existed for commercial gain (see, for example, Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).")). The Panel finds that paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy has direct application to both domain names. They were created on the same day. The use to which the <snapchataccounts.com> name was put shows uncontrovertibly that Respondent knew of, and targeted, Complainant and its trademark. The Panel finds registration in bad faith. The evidence shows that Respondent demanded at least USD900.00 for transfer of the names. Evidence is taken from the Registrar's website that the creation and renewal costs for two names over the relevant period is significantly less than that demanded. The panel finds, in terms of the Policy, that Respondent registered the domain names primarily for the purpose of transferring them to Complainant for consideration in excess of Respondent's out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain names. The Panel so finds that the third and final element of the Policy is satisfied. 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 <snapchataccounts.com> and <snapchataccountshop.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist Dated: February 2, 2025 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.