Snapchatplus.app

The timeline behind snapchatplus.app

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. Assem Mahgoob / Assem Claim Number: FA2601002201554 PARTIES Complainant is Snap Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Ginger Mimier of KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Assem Mahgoob / Assem ("Respondent"), Yemen. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <snapchatplus.app>, (the "Domain Name") registered with Name.com, 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. Dawn Osborne as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 23, 2026; Forum received payment on January 23, 2026. On January 27, 2026, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <snapchatplus.app> Domain Name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, 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 January 28, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 17, 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@snapchatplus.app. Also on January 28, 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 February 18, 2026 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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 The Complainant owns the SNAPCHAT trade mark used since 2011 and a trade mark for its ghost logo for computer related services all registered as registered trademarks by the Complainant in, inter alia, the USA. The Domain Name registered in 2023 points to a site featuring the Complainant's SNAPCHAT trade mark in its masthead, a very similar ghost graphic and a similar colour yellow to that used by the Complainant to offer competing software and malware. The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant's SNAPCHAT mark in its entirety adding only the generic term 'plus' and the gTLD .app making it confusingly similar to the Complainant's SNAPCHAT trade mark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is not authorised by the Complainant. Using a domain name containing a complainant's trade mark to drive traffic to an unauthorised commercial web site offering competing software is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial fair use. The Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name. The use on the Respondent's web site of the Complainant's SNAPCHAT mark, a similar ghost logo and similar yellow trade dress to that used by the Complainant shows that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant and its business, rights and services. The Respondent's conduct is registration and use in bad faith confusing Internet users for commercial gain and disrupting the Complainant's business. The Respondent has been the subject of another adverse decision under the UDRP involving the registration of another domain name containing the trade mark of a third party showing a pattern of bad faith activity. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Complainant owns the SNAPCHAT trade mark used since 2011 and a trade mark for its ghost logo for computer related services all registered as registered trademarks by the Complainant in, inter alia, the USA. The Domain Name registered in 2023 points to a site featuring the Complainant's SNAPCHAT trade mark in its masthead, a very similar ghost graphic and a similar colour yellow to that used by the Complainant to offer competing software and malware. The Respondent has been the subject of another adverse decision under the UDRP involving the registration of another domain name containing the trade mark of a third party. 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 Domain Name registered in 2023 incorporates the Complainant's SNAPCHAT mark (registered in the USA for computer related services and used since 2011) in its entirety adding only the generic term 'plus' and the gTLD .app. Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic term to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000)(finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). The Panel agrees that the addition of the generic term 'plus' to the Complainant's SNAPCHAT mark does prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and that mark pursuant to the Policy. The gTLD .app does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's SNAPCHAT mark. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark). Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purpose of the Policy to a mark in which the Complainant has rights. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum September 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). The use made of the Domain Name is commercial, not legitimate non commercial fair use. The web site attached to the Domain Name uses the Complainant's SNAPCHAT word mark in its masthead, the Complainant's ghost logo and a similar yellow colour to that of the Complainant to offer competing software and malware. It does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with the Complainant. The Panel finds this use is confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See Am. Intl Group Inc v Benjamin FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) (finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to advertise real estate services which competed with the Complainant's business did not constitute bona fide use.) Use to offer suspected malware is also not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. See Snap Inc. v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1735300 (Forum July 14, 2017) ("Use of a disputed domain name to offer malicious software does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).") The Respondent has not answered the Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein. As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith In the opinion of the Panelist, the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent's site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant due to the use the Complainant's word mark in its masthead and the use of the Complainant's ghost logo and yellow trade dress. The use of the Complainant's word mark, ghost logo and yellow trade dress and the reference to the Complainant's services on the Respondent's web site shows that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant and its rights, business and services. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to his website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site and services offered on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to advertise car dealerships that competed with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of those competing dealerships and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use). Offering malware via a domain name containing a complainant's mark is also bad faith under the Policy. See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Timothy Mays aka Linda Haley aka Edith Barberdi, FA 1617061 (Forum June 9, 2015) ("In addition, Respondent's undenied use of the websites resolving from the contested domain names to distribute malware and other malicious downloads further illustrates its bad faith in the registration and use of those domain names."). Further the Respondent has been the subject of another adverse decision under the UDRP evidencing a pattern of bad faith activity. See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1464477 (Forum Nov. 30, 2012) (finding where the record reflected that the respondent had been a respondent in other UDRP proceedings in which it was ordered to transfer disputed domain names to various complainants established a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names and stood as evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)). As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under para 4(b)(ii), (iii) and (iv). 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 <snapchatplus.app> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dawn Osborne, Panelist Dated: February 19, 2026 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.