See Eastman Sporto Group LLC v. Jim and Kenny, D2009-1688 (WIPO )

[i] See MatchNet PLC. v. MAC Trading, D2000-0205 (WIPO ); see also British Broad. Corp. v. Renteria, D2000-0050 (WIPO ).

[ix] See Arla Foods amba v. Bel Arbor / Domain Admin, , D2012-0875 (WIPO ); see also F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Bargin Register, Inc. – Client Servs., D2012-0474 (WIPO ).

[xii] See Alcon, Inc. https://hookupbook.org/college-hookup-apps/ v. ARanked, FA 1306493 ( Forum ) (The Panel finds that capitalizing on the well-known marks of Complainant by attracting internet users to its disputed domain names where Respondent sells competing products of Complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy 4(c)(i) or a noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy 4(c)(iii).).

The Panel is satisfied that despite the use of different names for registration purposes, the disputed domain names are all in fact registered by the same domain name holder. The following factors lead the Panel to this conclusion: (i) the common features of the disputed domain names themselves; (ii) the disputed domain names promote the distribution of pornography via Snapchat accounts; (iii) the disputed domain names share the same social networking functionalities; (iv) the disputed domain names share the same member database; (v) the disputed domain names share the same social network accounts on Twitter and Instagram; and (vi) the disputed domain names have nearly identical terms and conditions identifying the same DMCA agent. The Panel also notes that Respondent did not raise the issue of multiple respondents in this proceeding, and will refer to the named Respondents jointly as Respondent.

Hansmann, FA 1381755 ( Forum s

Certain jurisdictions endorse the doctrine of laches which typically bars the recovery of damages incurred before the filing of a lawsuit and courts have concluded that the rationale behind the doctrine of laches does not militate against injunctive relief. The remedies under the Policy are injunctive rather than compensatory in nature, and the concern is to avoid ongoing or future confusion as to the source of communications, goods, or services. The Policy offers a limited remedy to avoid future confusion in the marketplace, and it does not contemplate that such a remedy would be unavailable because of delay in instituting a Policy proceeding. Furthermore, lengthy delays in seeking legal or administrative remedies can often have the effect of eroding or undermining the Complainants arguments with respect to Respondents rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, or Respondent’s alleged bad faith in registering and using the domain name.

Complainant alleges that Respondents disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainants trademarks as they partially reproduce the trademark SNAPCHAT.

This Panel agrees with the previous Panels conclusions. Any domain name reproducing the predominant portion of the trademark SNAPCHAT must be deemed confusingly similar to the trademark.

(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(1) Circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has 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 Respondent s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

Thus, the requirements of the Policy can be studied not only regarding a domain name registration but also when it is renewed

Consequently, a domain name not only must be registered as per the requirements of Paragraph 2 of the Policy, but also its renewals must comply with the same standards.

I agree that Complainant secured rights to the SNAP and that they asserted their date of first use in the SNAPCHAT . Rights to the SNAPCHAT mark did not provide rights to the mark SNAP and all SNAP formative marks at the time. If that were the case, there would have been no need for Complainant to acquire the SNAP mark at a later time. However, a number of SNAP and SNAPS as was Respondents SNAPTEXT mark and Complainant took the steps necessary to later acquire a SNAP mark covering products related to its own goods and services.

Finally, I would also find, contrary to the WIPO 3.0 Overview, that laches should be considered in appropriate cases, such as this one, where several years have passed since Respondent established and continuously ran its business, and Complainant after passively watching, seeks retrospective relief. As is so oft stated, the UDRP is an administrative proceeding meant to provide equitable relief. It strains credulity to accept the proceeding as properly balanced in potentially providing equitable relief without due consideration to equitable defenses.

Scroll to Top