Snapvideosaver.com

The timeline behind snapvideosaver.com

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

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. sabir hussain / Seo Claim Number: FA2506002162703 PARTIES Complainant is Snap Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Silvia A. Francis-Bongue of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is sabir hussain / Seo ("Respondent"), Pakistan. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <snapvideosaver.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. Richard Hill as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 25, 2025; Forum received payment on June 25, 2025. On June 26, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <snapvideosaver.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 June 26, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 16, 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@snapvideosaver.com. Also on June 26, 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 July 17, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it owns and distributes the enormously popular SNAPCHAT camera and messaging application, and storytelling platform – available for both the iOS and Android operating systems – that, among other things, allows users to share photographs, videos, and messages called "Snaps" with others via mobile devices (the "Snapchat App"). Complainant's products empower people to express themselves, live in the moment, learn about the world and have fun together. By February 2017, the Snapchat App had an estimated 79% market share among teenagers and young adults in the United States, giving it the highest reach of social media and networking sites, surpassing Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. As of September 2017, the Snapchat App had more than 178 million daily active users globally, a 250% increase since 2014, who on average sent an estimated 3.5 billion Snaps every day. By the end of 2017, the number of daily active users of the Snapchat App increased 8.9 million or 5% sequentially to 187 million. According to Apple, the Snapchat App has been among the world's most three most downloaded iOS apps for the last four consecutive years, from 2016- 2019, including being the world's most downloaded iOS app in 2016. On July 18, 2022, Complainant launched Snapchat for Web, which allows users to use the Snapchat platform from their desktop computers, including to send messages and Snaps, as well as to communicate via video calls. As of the end of the fourth quarter of 2024, Snapchat had, on average, 453 million daily active users. Complainant owns and operates websites at the domain names <snapchat.com> and <snap.com>. Complainant has rights in the SNAPCHAT marks based on registration of the mark in the United States in 2013. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world and it is famous. Complainant also has rights in the mark SNAP through its registration in the United States in 2013. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its SNAPCHAT mark because it incorporates the dominant portion SNAP of the mark, merely adding the generic/descriptive terms "video saver", together with the ".com" generic top level domain ("gTLD"). The disputed domain name is also confusingly similar to Complainant's SNAP mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic/descriptive terms "video saver", together with the ".com" generic top level domain ("gTLD"). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has no relationship to Complainant. Respondent does not use the disputed domain for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the resolving website uses Complainant's SNAPCHAT mark and logo to promote a video downloader tool and an unauthorized version of the Snapchat app. The video downloader tool purports to offer the ability to scrape content from the Snapchat platform and download Snapchat videos posted by Snapchat account holders without authorization, although the tool does not function. The operation of such a tool would be in breach of the Complainant's Terms of Service. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to promote a video downloader tool and an unauthorized version of Complainant's Snapchat app. The downloader tool, if it worked, would violate Complainant's Terms of Service. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its mark based on the fame of the mark and Respondent's use of Complainant's mark and logo. Respondent used a privacy service. Respondent did not reply to a cease-and-desist letter. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the marks SNAPCHAT and SNAP and uses them to provide a camera and messaging application and storytelling platform. Complainant's rights in its marks date back to at least 2013. The disputed domain name was registered in 2024. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks. The resolving website displays Complainant's logo and one of its marks; it purports to offer a video downloader tool which supposedly enables downloading content from the Complainant's platform, in competition with Complainant, and an unauthorized version of Complainant's app. 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 Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 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 The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's SNAP mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic/descriptive terms "video saver", together with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). The addition generic or descriptive terms, and a gTLD, fails sufficiently to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Morgan Stanley v. Eugene Sykorsky / private person, FA 1651901 (Forum Jan. 19, 2016) (concluding that the addition of a generic term and top level domain to a trademark is inconsequential under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.); see also Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word "advisors" and the gTLD ".com" did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SNAP mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). According to 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0"): "In specific limited instances, while not a replacement as such for the typical side-by-side comparison, where a panel would benefit from affirmation as to confusing similarity with the complainant's mark, the broader case context such as website content trading off the complainant's reputation, … may support a finding of confusing similarity." Here, Complainant presents evidence showing that the resolving website contains elements likely intended to make consumers believe that Respondent's site is somehow affiliated with Complainant. This supports the side-by-side comparison below. The disputed domain name incorporates the dominant portion SNAP of Complainant's SNAPCHAT mark and merely adds the generic/descriptive terms "video saver" along with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Such changes do not distinguish the domain name from the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See ADP, LLC. v. Ella Magal, FA 1773958 (Forum August 2, 2017) ("Respondent's <workforce-now.com> domain name appropriates the dominant portion of Complainant's ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark and adds a hyphen and the gTLD ".com." These changes do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark."); see also 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."); see also Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SNAPCHAT mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its marks. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating "nothing in [the respondent's] WHOIS information implies that [the respondent] is 'commonly known by' the disputed domain name" as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name list the registrant as "sabir hussain / Seo". Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The resolving website purports to offer competing and unauthorized goods. Previous Panels have found that use of a disputed domain name to offer goods or services in competition with those of a complainant, and/or unauthorized or counterfeit goods, does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Dan Stanley Saturne, FA 1785085 (Forum June 8, 2018) ("Respondent's use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use" where "Respondent is apparently using the disputed domain name to offer for sale competing services."); see also Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Fergus Knox, FA 1627751 (Forum Aug. 19, 2015) (finding no bona fide offering of goods or legitimate noncommercial or fair use existed where Respondent used the resolving website to sell products branded with Complainant's MERRELL mark, and were either counterfeit products or legitimate products of Complainant being resold without authorization). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's marks. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name. Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website purports to offer competing and unauthorized goods. Panels have held that registration and use of a disputed domain name to divert Internet traffic to a competing website offering the same or similar goods or services and/or unauthorized or counterfeit goods demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv). See ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA 1761403 (Forum Dec. 29, 2017) (finding bad faith where Respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt Complainant's business by diverting Internet users from Complainant's website to Respondent's website where it offered competing printer products); see also Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA 1579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) ("Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant."); see also Crocs, Inc. v. jing dian, Case No. FA 1587214 (Forum Dec. 12, 2014) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the disputed domain name to display the complainant's marks to sell unauthorized goods); see also H-D Michigan, LLC v. Ross, FA 1250712 (Forum Apr. 23, 2009) (determining that the respondent's selling of counterfeit products creates the likelihood of confusion as to the complainant's affiliation with the disputed domain name and allows the respondent to profit from that confusion and thus demonstrates bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's marks: the resolving website displays Complainant's logo and one of Complainant's marks. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) ("There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy."); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) ("The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize 'constructive notice' as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it."); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the marks prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes 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 <snapvideosaver.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: July 17, 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.