Snapchat, Inc. just lost a UDRP on the domain name snapchatcheck.com and the domain holder didn’t even respond.
Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, was the sole Panelist.
Here are the highlights:
“Complainant claims Respondent has not provided any bona fide offering of goods or services, or made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Complainant claims Respondent uses the disputed domain to pass itself off as Complainant.
This Panel disagrees after doing some research outside the record and reviewing Respondent’s web site.
Apparently, Complainant had a security breach.
Respondent’s web site allows uses to see if their data was leaked as part of that security breach (taking the web site at face value).
Policy ¶4(c)(iii) provides when a respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name (without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue), they have established rights and legitimate rights in the domain name.
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(ii) NOT satisfied.
Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the snapchatcheck.com domain name pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(ii).
This generally raises a rebuttable presumption Respondent did not register or use the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii).
Respondent has not violated any of the factors listed in Policy ¶4(b) or engaged in any other conduct that would constitute bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii).
Respondent did not register and use the disputed domain name in bad faith, even though it was registered using a privacy service.
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(iii) NOT satisfied.
