Hence, the Panel considers that the partial reproduction of the tradees is sufficient ground to establish that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark [viii] .
In consequence, as per this reasoning, the Panel finds that, in the present case, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainants mark and thus, the requirement set forth in Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is duly complied with.
Rights www.hookupdate.net/local-hookup/amarillo/ or Legitimate Interests
Regarding this second element of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, UDRP Panels have unanimously consented that requiring the Complainant to prove the lack of rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name is often an impossible task: it is not only a negative but also demands access to information that is mostly within the knowledge of the Respondent [ix] .
Is the Respondent required to adduce any such evidence, if the onus is on the Complainant to prove the three elements of paragraph 4 of the Policy? While the overall burden of proof is on the Complainant, this element involves the Complainant proving matters, which are peculiarly within the knowledge of the Respondent. In the Panel s view the correct approach is as follows: the Complainant makes the allegation and puts forward what he can in support (e.g. he has rights to the name, the Respondent has no rights to the name of which he is aware, he has not given any permission to the Respondent). Unless the allegation is manifestly misconceived, the Respondent has a case to answer and that is where paragraph 4(c) of the Policy comes in. If the Respondent then fails to demonstrate his rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, the complaint succeeds under this head.
Therefore, a Complainant is required to make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once this prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to Respondent, who must come forward with concrete evidence of its rights or legitimate interests [x] . If Respondent fails to do so, Complainant is deemed to have met the second element of Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names , , and because of the following: i) Respondent knew or should have known of the existence and use of the trademark SNAPCHAT, when including it within the disputed domain names; ii) Respondent was not authorized by Complainant to use the tradees ; iii) Neither Respondent nor the services offered by Respondent on the website to which the disputed domain names resolved are affiliated with, associated with, or otherwise endorsed by Complainant; iv) Respondent uses Complainants trademark within the resolving website; v) Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its trademarks within the website to which the disputed domain names resolved; and vi) Respondent does not use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain names in connection with a website that uses Complainant colors and trademarks, and facilitates the exchange of pornography via private Snapchat accounts.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy includes a listing of circumstances that prove Respondents rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name:
The Panel accepts these assertions as a prima facie case made by Complainant that shifts the burden of production to Respondent.
(i) before any notice of the dispute, Respondents use of, or 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