There is a precedent concerning a domain name resolving to the website snapsext, decided in favor of Complainant (Snap, Inc

There is a precedent concerning a domain name resolving to the website snapsext, decided in favor of Complainant (Snap, Inc

PARTIES CONTENTIONS

bplainant has rights in the SNAPCHAT and SNAP-formative marks through its registration of the mark with the many different trademark offices around the world.

c. Respondents disputed domain names , , and are identical or confusingly similar to Complainants mark, as Respondent merely includes the generic or descriptive terms sext, candy, and bang and adds the generic top-level domain (gTLD) to Complainants SNAP marks.

e. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names nor has Respondent been licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted by Complainant to use Complainants mark.

f. Furthermore, Respondents use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent is selling subscriptions for access to private SnapChat accounts of models that may provide adult oriented content in a manner that violates Complainants terms of service prohibiting such conduct.

l. Respondent did alter the resolving websites to mitigate any perceived confusion, but in doing so, believes that the changes are sufficient to avoid any confusion by Internet users.

mplainant does not have sole rights to the picture with superimposed text format, and Complainant does not have a website in which Internet traffic can be diverted from, as Complainant is solely a mobile application.

viii. In 2018, Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to Respondent concerning the domain name , for the infringer to remove any reference to the trademark SNAPCHAT.

ix. In 2020, Complainant gained awareness of the existence of further infringing domain names and sent a cease and desist letter to Respondent concerning the domain names and , which were offering access to SNAPCHAT accounts for the purpose of distributing pornography, which violates SNAPCHATs terms for using the app.

iiplainant implies that the Panel does not understand the difference between time spent searching a database and the time spent analyzing the results of that search.

FINDINGS

1plainant owns the tradeerica, registered on , to identify goods in international class 9, before Respondent acquired the disputed domain names.

4. Respondent knew of Complainants tradees. Thus, Respondent used the trademark SNAPCHAT to create a likelihood of confusion aimed to divert consumers to Respondents offered services, and included the trademark within the resolving websites and referred users to the accounts on the SNAPCHAT app.

5. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way. Complainant has never authorized, contracted, licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the trademarks SNAPCHAT or SNAP.

6. Respondents use of the disputed domain names is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

hookupdate.net/girlsdateforfree-review/

7. Respondent has the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.

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

The Panel will determine the application of the Doctrine of Laches; whether or not the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the mark in which Complainant has rights. Afterwards, the Panel will verify if Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and finally, the Panel will establish whether or not the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith by Respondent.