Calvin Broadus v Lasgaa Mohamed, acorm

WIPO Case No. D2024-4499

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

CALVIN BROADUS v. LASGAA MOHAMED, acorm

Case No. D2024-4499

1. The Parties

The Complainant is CALVIN BROADUS, United States of America, represented by Venable, LLP, United

States of America.

The Respondent is LASGAA MOHAMED, acorm, Türkiye.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <snoopdoggs2-sandbox.digital> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a

PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 31, 2024. On November 1, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 4, 2024, 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 (Registrant Unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 5, 2024, 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 amendment to the Complaint on November 8, 2024.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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 November 12, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 2, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 4, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed Manuel Moreno-Torres as the sole panelist in this matter on December 9, 2024. 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, Calvin Broadus, also known as “Snoop Dogg”, is a world-renowned musician and celebrity who conducts business on the Internet through different websites such as: “ or “ The Complainant has millions of fans in different social media platforms. By way of example – 89 million followers in Instagram.

The Complainant is the owner of SNOOP DOGG trademark in different jurisdictions such as:

United States of America with registration number 2697128, registered on March 18, 2003.
European Union with registration number 1296177, registered on October 3, 2000.

Türkiye with registration number 2023/181105, registered on April 29, 2024.

The Complainant has received recognition from different organizations in the world of entertainment
(Billboard, MTV, AVN, etc). SNOOP DOGG trademark is to be considered well-known for UDRP purposes.

The disputed domain name <snoopdoggs2-sandbox.digital> was registered on October 7, 2024, and redirected to a website misrepresenting the Complainant where it purports to sell metaverse-ready Avatars, playable in “The Sandbox”, i.e., a virtual gaming world in the metaverse. Currently, the disputed domain name diverts to a mock-up of a restaurant website without actual content and no evidence of real existence has been found by the Panel, since Google Maps in the site referred to Rio de Janeiro while the contact address referred to a seemingly inexistent New York place of business.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

Notably, the Complainant contends there is no evidence or circumstances under Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy that would give rise to any rights or legitimate interest for the Respondent.

Besides, the Complainant alleges that by registering the disputed domain name and by offering for sale counterfeit goods, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website (Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv)).

B. Respondent

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

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the

Complainant has rights;

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

(iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

There are no exceptional circumstances within paragraph 5(f) of the Rules to prevent the Panel from determining the dispute based upon the Complaint, notwithstanding the failure of the Respondent to file a Response. Under paragraph 14(a) of the Rules in the event of such a “default” the Panel is still required “to proceed with a decision on the complaint”, whilst under paragraph 14(b) it “shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate”. This dispute resolution procedure is accepted by the disputed domain name registrant as a condition of registration.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section

1.7.

Although the addition of other terms here, “sandbox”, may bear on assessment of the second and third
elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between
the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.
The same conclusion is reached by the addition of the figure “2”, or the letter “s”, or the “hyphen” to the

Complainant’s trademark.

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

page 4

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

Indeed, upon examination of the file none of the illustrative examples depicted in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or any other legitimate circumstance applies in this case in favor of the Respondent. Rather, the disputed domain name resolved to a website, where the Respondent purportedly is offering the Complainant’s products despite having no connection to the Complainant.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed as applicable to this case: impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. Moreover, the nature of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.

The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. As noted above, the disputed domain name is inherently misleading, and the Respondent is misrepresenting the Complainant.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent knew or should have known the Complainant and its trademarks at the moment of the registration of the disputed domain name. Indeed, post-registration use in the Respondent’s website together with the reproduction in it of the Complainant's products, determine

such prior knowledge.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed as applicable to this case: impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

Currently, the disputed domain name redirects to a mock-up restaurant website which has no actual content and is to be deemed, in the Panel’s view, as an example of “coming soon” or non-use of a domain name.

Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, and the composition of the disputed domain name, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.

page 5

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 <snoopdoggs2-sandbox.digital> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Manuel Moreno-Torres/
Manuel Moreno-Torres
Sole Panelist
Date: December 23, 2024