Snaptroid.cc

The timeline behind snaptroid.cc

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.

DECISION Snap Inc. v. Maria Bibi Claim Number: FA2602002206012 PARTIES Complainant is Snap Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Brianna D. Khong of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Maria Bibi ("Respondent"), Pakistan. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <snaptroid.cc> (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 February 18, 2026; Forum received payment on February 18, 2026. On February 19, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <snaptroid.cc> 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 February 24, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 16, 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@snaptroid.cc. Also on February 24, 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 March 17, 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 response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant owns and distributes the widely popular SNAPCHAT camera and messaging application and storytelling platform. Complainant asserts rights in the SNAPCHAT mark, the SNAP mark, and various marks incorporating the term SNAP, including SNAP & Design, SNAP ADS, SNAP CHANNEL, SNAPCODE, SNAP PUBLISHER, SNAP PIXEL, SNAP ORIGINALS, SNAP FOCUS, and SNAP CONNECT (collectively, the "Snap Marks"), supported by numerous United States and foreign trademark registrations. The Snapchat App was launched in 2011 and, as of the third quarter of 2025, had on average 477 million daily active users. Multiple prior UDRP panels have found the Snap Marks to be famous. Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Name <snaptroid.cc> is confusingly similar to the Snap Marks because it incorporates the SNAP mark in its entirety, with the addition of the letters "troid" and the ccTLD ".cc," which do not sufficiently distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from Complainant's marks. Complainant notes that a prior panel found the added term "troid" has no dictionary meaning but alludes to "-oid," a known suffix indicating similarity. Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant has no relationship with Respondent, and nothing in Respondent's WHOIS information suggests Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant alleges that Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name to resolve to a website (the "Respondent's Website") that prominently displays Complainant's Ghost Logo and Snapchat Yellow color mark, along with the SNAPCHAT and SNAP marks, and offers unauthorized counterfeit versions of the Snapchat application called "Snaptroid v4.1" and "Snaptroid v3.0" for download as APK files. Complainant contends this is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on January 2, 2025, well after Complainant's marks became famous. Respondent displays Complainant's Ghost Logo and Snapchat Yellow on Respondent's Website, offers unauthorized APK downloads of counterfeit Snapchat software, and used a privacy service to register the Disputed Domain Name. Additionally, Complainant contends that Respondent is a repeat offender, having been ordered in a prior proceeding (FA 2191542) to transfer seven other "snaptroid" domain names to Complainant. Complainant contends that Respondent's conduct constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(ii), 4(b)(iii), and 4(b)(iv). B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds the following: Complainant owns registered trademarks for the SNAP and SNAPCHAT marks and various SNAP-formative marks used in connection with its camera and messaging application and related services. Complainant's SNAPCHAT mark has been in use since September 2011. Multiple prior UDRP panels have found the Snap Marks to be famous. As of the third quarter of 2025, the Snapchat application had on average 477 million daily active users worldwide. Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name <snaptroid.cc> on January 2, 2025. The Registrar information identifies Respondent as "Maria Bibi." There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by SNAP, SNAPCHAT, or any similar name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Disputed Domain Name resolves to Respondent's Website, which uses Complainant's Ghost Logo and Snapchat Yellow color mark in the favicon and throughout the site, along with references to the SNAPCHAT and SNAP marks, and offers unauthorized versions of the Snapchat application called "Snaptroid v4.1" and "Snaptroid v3.0" for download as APK files. The Panel considers that these unauthorized downloads constitute counterfeit software that competes with Complainant's own offerings. This same Respondent, Maria Bibi, was previously found to have registered and used seven other "snaptroid" domain names in bad faith in Snap Inc. v. Maria Bibi, FA 2191542 (Forum Dec. 8, 2025), and was ordered to transfer those domain names to Complainant. 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 Complainant has established rights in the SNAP and SNAPCHAT marks through numerous trademark registrations in the United States and abroad, as well as through extensive use in commerce since 2011. The Disputed Domain Name <snaptroid.cc> incorporates Complainant's SNAP mark in its entirety, adding only the letters "troid" and the ccTLD ".cc." The addition of these letters does not sufficiently distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from Complainant's mark. As a prior panel found in a case involving this same Respondent, the added term "troid" has no dictionary meaning but alludes to "-oid," a known suffix indicating a similarity to the word it is appended to. See Snap Inc. v. Silk er / Anton Nita, FA 2148704 (Forum Apr. 30, 2025). The Panel considers that the term "snaptroid" immediately evokes Complainant's SNAP mark and suggests an application or tool associated with the Snapchat platform, compounding the likelihood of confusion. The inclusion of the ccTLD ".cc" is irrelevant to the confusing similarity analysis. See WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 1.11.1; Snap Inc. v. li li / sb llc, FA 2110274 (Forum Aug. 29, 2024). The Panel has no difficulty finding that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SNAP mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, at which point the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 2.1. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "Maria Bibi," and there is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not licensed or authorized to use the Snap Marks. Respondent used the Disputed Domain Name to operate Respondent's Website, which prominently displays Complainant's Ghost Logo and Snapchat Yellow color mark and offers unauthorized counterfeit versions of the Snapchat application for download as APK files. The offering of unauthorized counterfeit software is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Snap Inc. v. Maria Bibi, FA 2191542 (Forum Dec. 8, 2025) (finding that the offering of unauthorized counterfeit downloads cannot be bona fide, irrespective of any other actual or claimed use of the domain names); Snap Inc. v. RAJAT NAIK / REZONE, FA 2099351 (Forum Jun. 18, 2024) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where respondent used the SNAPCHAT mark to offer an unauthorized version of the Snapchat App). Use of a domain name for illegal activity such as the distribution of counterfeit software can never confer rights or legitimate interests. See WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 2.13.1. Respondent has not submitted a Response or provided any evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on January 2, 2025, well over a decade after Complainant established rights in the Snap Marks through use in commerce and trademark registration. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the SNAP mark in its entirety, and Respondent's Website prominently displays Complainant's Ghost Logo, Snapchat Yellow color mark, and SNAPCHAT and SNAP marks. The Panel finds that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights. See Snap Inc. v. Daisy Ducharme / baby & belly photography, FA 1872261 (Forum Dec. 28, 2019) (finding actual knowledge due to notoriety of Complainant's marks); see also WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 3.1.4. Respondent used the Disputed Domain Name to operate Respondent's Website, which displayed Complainant's trademarks and branding elements and offered unauthorized counterfeit versions of Complainant's Snapchat application for download—thereby disrupting Complainant's business and trading upon the goodwill of Complainant's marks for Respondent's commercial gain. This conduct constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv). See Snap Inc. v. Maria Bibi, FA 2191542 (Forum Dec. 8, 2025) (finding bad faith where resolving websites promoted counterfeit software); Google LLC v. MAXO GROUP LTD / MAXO GROUP, FA 1820047 (Forum Jan. 6, 2019) (finding use of disputed domain names to offer unauthorized apps for download to be evidence of bad faith). Additionally, Respondent used a privacy service to register the Disputed Domain Name, which, in the context of the other bad faith factors present, provides further support for a finding of bad faith. See ELANCO ANIMAL HEALTH GMBH v. Adriel Gefter, FA 2146267 (Forum Apr. 23, 2025). Finally, this same Respondent was previously ordered to transfer seven "snaptroid" domain names to Complainant in Snap Inc. v. Maria Bibi, FA 2191542 (Forum Dec. 8, 2025). Respondent's continued registration of additional domain names incorporating Complainant's mark constitutes a pattern of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. zuhal topuz, FA 2008843 (Forum Sept. 21, 2022) ("Respondent's past conduct and UDRP history establishes a pattern of registered domain names in bad faith"). 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 <snaptroid.cc> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David L. Kreider, Panelist Dated: March 18, 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.