Snap Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Domain Professionals, LLC / Domain Master / Global Personals, LLC / Domain Master / Worldwide Connect Partners, LLC
PARTIES
Complainant is Snap Inc. (Complainant), represented by Caroline Barbee of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Domain Administrator / Domain Professionals, LLC / Domain Master / Global Personals, LLC / Domain Master / Worldwide Connect Partners, LLC (Respondent), represented by Jason A. Fischer of Bryn & Associates, P.A., Florida, USA.
PANEL
The undersigned certify that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelists best free hookup apps iphone in this proceeding.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On , Moniker Online Services LLC; Topsystem, LLC; GoDaddy, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the disputed domain names , , and are registered with Moniker Online Services LLC; Topsystem, LLC; GoDaddy, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Moniker Online Services LLC; Topsystem, LLC; GoDaddy, LLC have verified that Respondent is bound by the Moniker Online Services LLC; Topsystem, LLC; GoDaddy, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANNs Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Policy).
On , the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondents registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to , , Also on , 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 Respondents registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”) finds that the 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.
RELIEF SOUGHT
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules) provides that a complaint e, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.
Complainant contends that the disputed domain names all distribute adult content via Snapchat accounts, have the same model profiles, social network functionalities and member database. Additionally, the disputed domain names link to the same social media accounts on Twitter and Instagram and have nearly identical terms and conditions that identify the same DMCA agent.
The Panel notes that a complainant can commence a proceeding with a single complaint on the basis of the assertion that multiple domain names are registered by the same domain name holder, and even if the panel ultimately does not accept that the domain name holder is in fact the same, can still allow the single complainant to proceed on the basis of its consolidation power in paragraph 10(e) provided there is a sufficient nexus between the disputed domain names to justify consolidation, and provided also that the distinct respondents are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case (paragraph 10(b) of the Rules). The Panel notes that a single consolidated proceeding against distinct respondents raises potential issues of prejudice to the Respondents procedural rights (e.g. the right of individual Respondents to elect a three member panel: see Apple Inc. v. Private Whois Service) as well as substantive prejudice, given that individual purpose and intention are such important elements of bad faith.