About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Snowflake, Inc. v. li houchang, leehouchang

Case No. DCO2020-0048

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Snowflake, Inc., United States of America, represented by Intsights Cyber Intelligence Ltd., Israel.

The Respondent is li houchang, leehouchang, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <snowflakecomputing.co> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 5, 2020. On August 13, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On August 14, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 18, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on August 18, 2020. The Center sent the email requesting the Complainant’s confirmation regarding the Respondent and the Registrar on August 19, 2020. On August 20, 2020, the Complainant sent an email confirming the Respondent and the Registrar in the Complaint.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 26, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 15, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 16, 2020.

The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on September 24, 2020. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a cloud-based data-warehousing start up that was founded in 2012, based in San Mateo, California.

The Complainant owns numerous trademarks for the term SNOWFLAKE, among others:

- SNOWFLAKE Australian trademark Registration No. 1907156, registered on February 15, 2018; and
- SNOWFLAKE United States Trademark Registration No. 5839517, registered on August 20, 2019.

In addition, the Complainant owns the domain name <snowflake.com> registered on July 8, 1995.

The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name <snowflakecomputing.co> on February 26, 2020. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website with pay-per-clicks (“PPC”) advertisements.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contentions can be summarized as follows:

Identical or confusingly similar

The Complainant states that the Disputed Domain Name reproduces the entirety of the Complainant’s trademark with the addition of the term “computing”. The mere use of the SNOWFLAKE trademark is sufficient to show that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

Rights or legitimate interests

The Complainant states that the Respondent operates a website that was meant to run an index website, displaying ads related to the Complainant.

The Complainant further states that the use of the Disputed Domain Name is clearly meant to trick users. Thus, the Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name with no legitimate interest.

Registration and use in bad faith

The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith, as it was registered by using names and methods to deceive end users.

The Complainant further states that the Respondent use of a registration of the Disputed Domain Name without providing real details, shows the Respondent’s bad faith at the time of the registration.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which the Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Disputed Domain Name in this case:

“(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in the which the complainant has rights;

(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.”

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Based on the evidence submitted, this Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name <snowflakecomputing.co> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark SNOWFLAKE. The Disputed Domain Name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s trademark.

The Disputed Domain Name only differs from the Complainant’s trademark with the addition of the term “computing”. The addition of such term does not eliminate the confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trademark.

Moreover, the addition of the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) “.co” does not change this finding, since the TLD is generally disregarded in such an assessment of confusingly similarity.

Therefore, this Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name:

“(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

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

(iii) you are 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 at issue.”

There is no evidence of the existence of any of those rights or legitimate interests. The Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the Disputed Domain Name or to use the SNOWFLAKE trademark.

The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any rights with respect to the Disputed Domain Name or that the Disputed Domain Name is used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.

The Respondent had the opportunity to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests, but it did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

As such this Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the second requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent registered and subsequently used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.

The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name after the Complainant had the registration of its trademarks. Thus, it is very likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark and business when it acquired the Disputed Domain Name. Moreover, the Panel notes that the Disputed Domain Name includes the term “computing” and that the Complainant is a company doing business in the cloud computing industry.

The Respondent has not denied the Complainant’s assertions because of its default. The Panel is of the view that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s trademark and prior rights.

Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy states: “by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location”.

In the case at hand, the Respondent’s registration of a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SNOWFLAKE trademark, used for PPC links associated with the Complainant services, the absence of any documented rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the Disputed Domain Name and its failure to respond to the Complaint, constitutes bad faith.

In addition, the Respondent has taken active steps to conceal its true identity through a privacy service. The

Panel is of the view that this particular conduct further evidences the Respondent’s bad faith.

Due to this conduct, it is obvious that the Respondent intentionally created a likelihood confusion with the Complainant’s trademark and websites in order to attract Internets users for its own commercial gain, as required by paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Therefore, taking all circumstances into account and for all the above reasons, the Panel concludes that there is bad faith in the registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Name <snowflakecomputing.co> be transferred to the Complainant.

Pablo A. Palazzi
Sole Panelist
Date: October 8, 2020

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/