Did This Domain Investor Triumph Against Fundraising Titan?

In the dynamic world of online domains, clashes over web addresses are not uncommon. Recently, a dispute involving SnapMobile.com raised eyebrows, pitting a domain investor against a fundraising powerhouse. As someone who delves into branding, patents, trademarks, and Intellectual Property on my online platform, this case offers a fascinating glimpse into the complexities of domain disputes.

The Background Story:

At the heart of the matter is Snap! Mobile, a fundraising platform claiming common law rights to its trademark since 2014. The company asserts a robust track record, with over 100,000 teams, clubs, and organizations in the United States having raised a staggering $700 million through its platform. However, the crux of the dispute lies in whether Snap! Mobile has legitimate trademark rights to the name.

The Complainant’s Case:

Snap! Mobile, founded in 2014, argues it holds common law rights to the trademark SNAP! MOBILE. To support this claim, the company presents a slew of articles, business profiles, press releases, and social media posts. Additionally, a certificate of liability insurance is offered as evidence. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent, a domain name investor, is not using SnapMobile.com for a bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, they claim the Respondent attempted to sell the domain for a hefty sum of $399,888 since at least 2018, suggesting bad faith.

The Respondent’s Defense:

The Respondent, a domain name investor engaged in buying, developing, and managing domain names, contends that they were unaware of Snap! Mobile when acquiring SnapMobile.com. They argue that offering the domain for sale is within their rights as part of their business model. The crux of the Respondent’s defense hinges on the lack of evidence showing their awareness of Snap! Mobile and its alleged trademark.

The Panel’s Verdict:

In a nuanced decision, the panel, comprised of Mr. Douglas M. Isenberg (Chair), Mr. Martin Schwimmer, and Honorable Mr. Charles Kuechenmeister, rendered their judgment. Crucially, they found that the Complainant failed to establish rights in the SNAP MOBILE name as a trademark. Despite providing information about their business, the association of the alleged trademark with their services was unclear.

The panel also emphasized that holding domain names for resale, even those consisting of common phrases, can be legitimate under the UDRP. In this case, there was no evidence indicating that the Respondent registered the domain with knowledge of Snap! Mobile or its trademark.

The Verdict’s Implications:

This case holds significance in highlighting the challenges of establishing trademark rights and bad faith in domain disputes. It underscores the importance of concrete evidence to substantiate claims and the potential legitimacy of domain investors acquiring and selling domains.


In the arena of domain disputes, the SnapMobile.com case serves as a compelling narrative of a domain investor navigating allegations from a fundraising giant. As someone keen on unraveling the intricacies of branding, patents, trademarks, and Intellectual Property, this clash offers valuable insights into the evolving landscape of online domains. It also serves as a reminder of the importance of evidence and clarity in asserting claims in the complex world of domain disputes.

Read the full case here.


  1. John Will Avatar

    This case truly illuminates the complexities and challenges of navigating trademark rights in the domain world. It’s intriguing how the panel emphasized the need for concrete evidence to substantiate claims, highlighting the evolving landscape of online domains. While it’s a win for the domain investor in this instance, it also underscores the significance of establishing clear trademark associations for businesses in protecting their online presence. A fascinating intersection of law, trademarks, and domain investing indeed.”

Join the Discussion

Discover more from Domain Magazine

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Verified by ExactMetrics