Westmore · UDRP DecisionJmycricket.com + 113 more domains
The Panel ordered all 114 disputed domain names transferred to Complainant. It found the domains confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered CRICKET mark, found no rights or legitimate interests because Respondent used typographical variants through Complainant’s affiliate program and was not commonly known by them, and found bad faith from the pattern of 114 registrations, affiliate-program profit, and typosquatting.
The timeline behind jmycricket.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind jmycricket.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.
The Panel found a bad-faith pattern from Respondent’s registration of 114 disputed domains, commercial bad faith from affiliate-program profits generated by redirecting users to Complainant’s website, and additional bad faith from typosquatting.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Cricket Communications, Inc v. Jason Banks a/k/a Domain Management SPM Claim Number: FA0907001273896 PARTIES Complainant is Cricket Communications, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA. Respondent is Jason Banks a/k/a Domain Management SPM (“Respondent”), Florida, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <jmycricket.com>, <jycricket.com>, <kmycricket.com>, <m6cricket.com>, <m6ycricket.com>, <m7cricket.com>, <m7ycricket.com>, <mcricket.com>, <mcyricket.com>, <mgcricket.com>, <mgycricket.com>, <mhycricket.com>, <mkycricket.com>, <mtycricket.com>, <mucricket.com>, <muycricket.com>, <my6cricket.com>, <my7cricket.com>, <myc4icket.com>, <myc4ricket.com>, <myc5icket.com>, <myc5ricket.com>, <mycdicket.com>, <mycdricket.com>, <mycericket.com>, <mycficket.com>, <mycfricket.com>, <mycicket.com>, <mycr4icket.com>, <mycr5icket.com>, <mycr8cket.com>, <mycr8icket.com>, <mycr9cket.com>, <mycr9icket.com>, <mycrcket.com>, <mycrficket.com>, <mycri8cket.com>, <mycri9cket.com>, <mycricdket.com>, <mycricet.com>, <mycricfket.com>, <mycriciet.com>, <mycricjket.com>, <mycrick3et.com>, <mycrick3t.com>, <mycrick4et.com>, <mycrick4t.com>, <mycrickdet.com>, <mycrickdt.com>, <mycricke.com>, <mycricke3t.com>, <mycricke4t.com>, <mycricke5.com>, <mycricke5t.com>, <mycricke6.com>, <mycricke6t.com>, <mycrickedt.com>, <mycrickef.com>, <mycrickeft.com>, <mycrickeg.com>, <mycrickegt.com>, <mycrickest.com>, <mycricket5.com>, <mycricket6.com>, <mycricketf.com>, <mycricketg.com>, <mycrickewt.com>, <mycrickjet.com>, <mycricklet.com>, <mycrickmet.com>, <mycrickoet.com>, <mycrickset.com>, <mycrickst.com>, <mycrickt.com>, <mycrickwet.com>, <mycrickwt.com>, <mycriclket.com>, <mycricmet.com>, <mycricmket.com>, <mycricoet.com>, <mycricoket.com>, <mycricvket.com>, <mycridcket.com>, <mycrifcket.com>, <mycrifket.com>, <mycrijcket.com>, <mycriucket.com>, <mycrivcket.com>, <mycrixcket.com>, <mycrjcket.com>, <mycrjicket.com>, <mycrkcket.com>, <mycrkicket.com>, <mycroicket.com>, <mycrticket.com>, <mycruicket.com>, <myctricket.com>, <mycvricket.com>, <mycxricket.com>, <mydcricket.com>, <myfcricket.com>, <myfricket.com>, <mygcricket.com>, <myhcricket.com>, <myrcicket.com>, <myricket.com>, <mytcricket.com>, <myucricket.com>, <myvcricket.com>, <myxcricket.com>, <myxricket.com>, <nmycricket.com>, <ycricket.com>, and <ymcricket.com> domain names, registered with Wild West Domains, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on July 14, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on July 15, 2009. On Jul 15, 2009, Wild West Domains, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <jmycricket.com>, <jycricket.com>, <kmycricket.com>, <m6cricket.com>, <m6ycricket.com>, <m7cricket.com>, <m7ycricket.com>, <mcricket.com>, <mcyricket.com>, <mgcricket.com>, <mgycricket.com>, <mhycricket.com>, <mkycricket.com>, <mtycricket.com>, <mucricket.com>, <muycricket.com>, <my6cricket.com>, <my7cricket.com>, <myc4icket.com>, <myc4ricket.com>, <myc5icket.com>, <myc5ricket.com>, <mycdicket.com>, <mycdricket.com>, <mycericket.com>, <mycficket.com>, <mycfricket.com>, <mycicket.com>, <mycr4icket.com>, <mycr5icket.com>, <mycr8cket.com>, <mycr8icket.com>, <mycr9cket.com>, <mycr9icket.com>, <mycrcket.com>, <mycrficket.com>, <mycri8cket.com>, <mycri9cket.com>, <mycricdket.com>, <mycricet.com>, <mycricfket.com>, <mycriciet.com>, <mycricjket.com>, <mycrick3et.com>, <mycrick3t.com>, <mycrick4et.com>, <mycrick4t.com>, <mycrickdet.com>, <mycrickdt.com>, <mycricke.com>, <mycricke3t.com>, <mycricke4t.com>, <mycricke5.com>, <mycricke5t.com>, <mycricke6.com>, <mycricke6t.com>, <mycrickedt.com>, <mycrickef.com>, <mycrickeft.com>, <mycrickeg.com>, <mycrickegt.com>, <mycrickest.com>, <mycricket5.com>, <mycricket6.com>, <mycricketf.com>, <mycricketg.com>, <mycrickewt.com>, <mycrickjet.com>, <mycricklet.com>, <mycrickmet.com>, <mycrickoet.com>, <mycrickset.com>, <mycrickst.com>, <mycrickt.com>, <mycrickwet.com>, <mycrickwt.com>, <mycriclket.com>, <mycricmet.com>, <mycricmket.com>, <mycricoet.com>, <mycricoket.com>, <mycricvket.com>, <mycridcket.com>, <mycrifcket.com>, <mycrifket.com>, <mycrijcket.com>, <mycriucket.com>, <mycrivcket.com>, <mycrixcket.com>, <mycrjcket.com>, <mycrjicket.com>, <mycrkcket.com>, <mycrkicket.com>, <mycroicket.com>, <mycrticket.com>, <mycruicket.com>, <myctricket.com>, <mycvricket.com>, <mycxricket.com>, <mydcricket.com>, <myfcricket.com>, <myfricket.com>, <mygcricket.com>, <myhcricket.com>, <myrcicket.com>, <myricket.com>, <mytcricket.com>, <myucricket.com>, <myvcricket.com>, <myxcricket.com>, <myxricket.com>, <nmycricket.com>, <ycricket.com>, and <ymcricket.com> domain names are registered with Wild West Domains, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Wild West Domains, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On July 17, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of August 6, 2009 by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@jmycricket.com, postmaster@jycricket.com, postmaster@kmycricket.com, postmaster@m6cricket.com, postmaster@m6ycricket.com, postmaster@m7cricket.com, postmaster@m7ycricket.com, postmaster@mcricket.com, postmaster@mcyricket.com, postmaster@mgcricket.com, postmaster@mgycricket.com, postmaster@mhycricket.com, postmaster@mkycricket.com, postmaster@mtycricket.com, postmaster@mucricket.com, postmaster@muycricket.com, postmaster@my6cricket.com, postmaster@my7cricket.com, postmaster@myc4icket.com, postmaster@myc4ricket.com, postmaster@myc5icket.com, postmaster@myc5ricket.com, postmaster@mycdicket.com, postmaster@mycdricket.com, postmaster@mycericket.com, postmaster@mycficket.com, postmaster@mycfricket.com, postmaster@mycicket.com, postmaster@mycr4icket.com, postmaster@mycr5icket.com, postmaster@mycr8cket.com, postmaster@mycr8icket.com, postmaster@mycr9cket.com, postmaster@mycr9icket.com, postmaster@mycrcket.com, postmaster@mycrficket.com, postmaster@mycri8cket.com, postmaster@mycri9cket.com, postmaster@mycricdket.com, postmaster@mycricet.com, postmaster@mycricfket.com, postmaster@mycriciet.com, postmaster@mycricjket.com, postmaster@mycrick3et.com, postmaster@mycrick3t.com, postmaster@mycrick4et.com, postmaster@mycrick4t.com, postmaster@mycrickdet.com, postmaster@mycrickdt.com, postmaster@mycricke.com, postmaster@mycricke3t.com, postmaster@mycricke4t.com, postmaster@mycricke5.com, postmaster@mycricke5t.com, postmaster@mycricke6.com, postmaster@mycricke6t.com, postmaster@mycrickedt.com, postmaster@mycrickef.com, postmaster@mycrickeft.com, postmaster@mycrickeg.com, postmaster@mycrickegt.com, postmaster@mycrickest.com, postmaster@mycricket5.com, postmaster@mycricket6.com, postmaster@mycricketf.com, postmaster@mycricketg.com, postmaster@mycrickewt.com, postmaster@mycrickjet.com, postmaster@mycricklet.com, postmaster@mycrickmet.com, postmaster@mycrickoet.com, postmaster@mycrickset.com, postmaster@mycrickst.com, postmaster@mycrickt.com, postmaster@mycrickwet.com, postmaster@mycrickwt.com, postmaster@mycriclket.com, postmaster@mycricmet.com, postmaster@mycricmket.com, postmaster@mycricoet.com, postmaster@mycricoket.com, postmaster@mycricvket.com, postmaster@mycridcket.com, postmaster@mycrifcket.com, postmaster@mycrifket.com, postmaster@mycrijcket.com, postmaster@mycriucket.com, postmaster@mycrivcket.com, postmaster@mycrixcket.com, postmaster@mycrjcket.com, postmaster@mycrjicket.com, postmaster@mycrkcket.com, postmaster@mycrkicket.com, postmaster@mycroicket.com, postmaster@mycrticket.com, postmaster@mycruicket.com, postmaster@myctricket.com, postmaster@mycvricket.com, postmaster@mycxricket.com, postmaster@mydcricket.com, postmaster@myfcricket.com, postmaster@myfricket.com, postmaster@mygcricket.com, postmaster@myhcricket.com, postmaster@myrcicket.com, postmaster@myricket.com, postmaster@mytcricket.com, postmaster@myucricket.com, postmaster@myvcricket.com, postmaster@myxcricket.com, postmaster@myxricket.com, postmaster@nmycricket.com, postmaster@ycricket.com, and postmaster@ymcricket.com by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On August 11, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant makes the following assertions: 1. Respondent’s <jmycricket.com>, <jycricket.com>, <kmycricket.com>, <m6cricket.com>, <m6ycricket.com>, <m7cricket.com>, <m7ycricket.com>, <mcricket.com>, <mcyricket.com>, <mgcricket.com>, <mgycricket.com>, <mhycricket.com>, <mkycricket.com>, <mtycricket.com>, <mucricket.com>, <muycricket.com>, <my6cricket.com>, <my7cricket.com>, <myc4icket.com>, <myc4ricket.com>, <myc5icket.com>, <myc5ricket.com>, <mycdicket.com>, <mycdricket.com>, <mycericket.com>, <mycficket.com>, <mycfricket.com>, <mycicket.com>, <mycr4icket.com>, <mycr5icket.com>, <mycr8cket.com>, <mycr8icket.com>, <mycr9cket.com>, <mycr9icket.com>, <mycrcket.com>, <mycrficket.com>, <mycri8cket.com>, <mycri9cket.com>, <mycricdket.com>, <mycricet.com>, <mycricfket.com>, <mycriciet.com>, <mycricjket.com>, <mycrick3et.com>, <mycrick3t.com>, <mycrick4et.com>, <mycrick4t.com>, <mycrickdet.com>, <mycrickdt.com>, <mycricke.com>, <mycricke3t.com>, <mycricke4t.com>, <mycricke5.com>, <mycricke5t.com>, <mycricke6.com>, <mycricke6t.com>, <mycrickedt.com>, <mycrickef.com>, <mycrickeft.com>, <mycrickeg.com>, <mycrickegt.com>, <mycrickest.com>, <mycricket5.com>, <mycricket6.com>, <mycricketf.com>, <mycricketg.com>, <mycrickewt.com>, <mycrickjet.com>, <mycricklet.com>, <mycrickmet.com>, <mycrickoet.com>, <mycrickset.com>, <mycrickst.com>, <mycrickt.com>, <mycrickwet.com>, <mycrickwt.com>, <mycriclket.com>, <mycricmet.com>, <mycricmket.com>, <mycricoet.com>, <mycricoket.com>, <mycricvket.com>, <mycridcket.com>, <mycrifcket.com>, <mycrifket.com>, <mycrijcket.com>, <mycriucket.com>, <mycrivcket.com>, <mycrixcket.com>, <mycrjcket.com>, <mycrjicket.com>, <mycrkcket.com>, <mycrkicket.com>, <mycroicket.com>, <mycrticket.com>, <mycruicket.com>, <myctricket.com>, <mycvricket.com>, <mycxricket.com>, <mydcricket.com>, <myfcricket.com>, <myfricket.com>, <mygcricket.com>, <myhcricket.com>, <myrcicket.com>, <myricket.com>, <mytcricket.com>, <myucricket.com>, <myvcricket.com>, <myxcricket.com>, <myxricket.com>, <nmycricket.com>, <ycricket.com>, <ymcricket.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CRICKET mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <jmycricket.com>, <jycricket.com>, <kmycricket.com>, <m6cricket.com>, <m6ycricket.com>, <m7cricket.com>, <m7ycricket.com>, <mcricket.com>, <mcyricket.com>, <mgcricket.com>, <mgycricket.com>, <mhycricket.com>, <mkycricket.com>, <mtycricket.com>, <mucricket.com>, <muycricket.com>, <my6cricket.com>, <my7cricket.com>, <myc4icket.com>, <myc4ricket.com>, <myc5icket.com>, <myc5ricket.com>, <mycdicket.com>, <mycdricket.com>, <mycericket.com>, <mycficket.com>, <mycfricket.com>, <mycicket.com>, <mycr4icket.com>, <mycr5icket.com>, <mycr8cket.com>, <mycr8icket.com>, <mycr9cket.com>, <mycr9icket.com>, <mycrcket.com>, <mycrficket.com>, <mycri8cket.com>, <mycri9cket.com>, <mycricdket.com>, <mycricet.com>, <mycricfket.com>, <mycriciet.com>, <mycricjket.com>, <mycrick3et.com>, <mycrick3t.com>, <mycrick4et.com>, <mycrick4t.com>, <mycrickdet.com>, <mycrickdt.com>, <mycricke.com>, <mycricke3t.com>, <mycricke4t.com>, <mycricke5.com>, <mycricke5t.com>, <mycricke6.com>, <mycricke6t.com>, <mycrickedt.com>, <mycrickef.com>, <mycrickeft.com>, <mycrickeg.com>, <mycrickegt.com>, <mycrickest.com>, <mycricket5.com>, <mycricket6.com>, <mycricketf.com>, <mycricketg.com>, <mycrickewt.com>, <mycrickjet.com>, <mycricklet.com>, <mycrickmet.com>, <mycrickoet.com>, <mycrickset.com>, <mycrickst.com>, <mycrickt.com>, <mycrickwet.com>, <mycrickwt.com>, <mycriclket.com>, <mycricmet.com>, <mycricmket.com>, <mycricoet.com>, <mycricoket.com>, <mycricvket.com>, <mycridcket.com>, <mycrifcket.com>, <mycrifket.com>, <mycrijcket.com>, <mycriucket.com>, <mycrivcket.com>, <mycrixcket.com>, <mycrjcket.com>, <mycrjicket.com>, <mycrkcket.com>, <mycrkicket.com>, <mycroicket.com>, <mycrticket.com>, <mycruicket.com>, <myctricket.com>, <mycvricket.com>, <mycxricket.com>, <mydcricket.com>, <myfcricket.com>, <myfricket.com>, <mygcricket.com>, <myhcricket.com>, <myrcicket.com>, <myricket.com>, <mytcricket.com>, <myucricket.com>, <myvcricket.com>, <myxcricket.com>, <myxricket.com>, <nmycricket.com>, <ycricket.com>, and <ymcricket.com> domain names. 3. Respondent registered and used the <jmycricket.com>, <jycricket.com>, <kmycricket.com>, <m6cricket.com>, <m6ycricket.com>, <m7cricket.com>, <m7ycricket.com>, <mcricket.com>, <mcyricket.com>, <mgcricket.com>, <mgycricket.com>, <mhycricket.com>, <mkycricket.com>, <mtycricket.com>, <mucricket.com>, <muycricket.com>, <my6cricket.com>, <my7cricket.com>, <myc4icket.com>, <myc4ricket.com>, <myc5icket.com>, <myc5ricket.com>, <mycdicket.com>, <mycdricket.com>, <mycericket.com>, <mycficket.com>, <mycfricket.com>, <mycicket.com>, <mycr4icket.com>, <mycr5icket.com>, <mycr8cket.com>, <mycr8icket.com>, <mycr9cket.com>, <mycr9icket.com>, <mycrcket.com>, <mycrficket.com>, <mycri8cket.com>, <mycri9cket.com>, <mycricdket.com>, <mycricet.com>, <mycricfket.com>, <mycriciet.com>, <mycricjket.com>, <mycrick3et.com>, <mycrick3t.com>, <mycrick4et.com>, <mycrick4t.com>, <mycrickdet.com>, <mycrickdt.com>, <mycricke.com>, <mycricke3t.com>, <mycricke4t.com>, <mycricke5.com>, <mycricke5t.com>, <mycricke6.com>, <mycricke6t.com>, <mycrickedt.com>, <mycrickef.com>, <mycrickeft.com>, <mycrickeg.com>, <mycrickegt.com>, <mycrickest.com>, <mycricket5.com>, <mycricket6.com>, <mycricketf.com>, <mycricketg.com>, <mycrickewt.com>, <mycrickjet.com>, <mycricklet.com>, <mycrickmet.com>, <mycrickoet.com>, <mycrickset.com>, <mycrickst.com>, <mycrickt.com>, <mycrickwet.com>, <mycrickwt.com>, <mycriclket.com>, <mycricmet.com>, <mycricmket.com>, <mycricoet.com>, <mycricoket.com>, <mycricvket.com>, <mycridcket.com>, <mycrifcket.com>, <mycrifket.com>, <mycrijcket.com>, <mycriucket.com>, <mycrivcket.com>, <mycrixcket.com>, <mycrjcket.com>, <mycrjicket.com>, <mycrkcket.com>, <mycrkicket.com>, <mycroicket.com>, <mycrticket.com>, <mycruicket.com>, <myctricket.com>, <mycvricket.com>, <mycxricket.com>, <mydcricket.com>, <myfcricket.com>, <myfricket.com>, <mygcricket.com>, <myhcricket.com>, <myrcicket.com>, <myricket.com>, <mytcricket.com>, <myucricket.com>, <myvcricket.com>, <myxcricket.com>, <myxricket.com>, <nmycricket.com>, <ycricket.com>, and <ymcricket.com> domain names in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Cricket Communications, Inc., provides unlimited wireless services and conducts a large portion of business online. Complainant has used the CRICKET mark since 1999. Complainant holds multiple trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for its CRICKET mark (i.e., Reg. No. 2,359,369 issued June 20, 2000). Respondent registered the disputed domain names no earlier than August 15, 2003. The disputed domain names resolve to Complainant’s own website through Complainant’s affiliate program. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”). Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Preliminary Issue: Multiple Respondents 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 an alias. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” Complainant contends that while the WHOIS information provides two Respondents, one person, “Jason Banks” (Respondent), actually owns the one-hundred-fourteen domain names and is the true Respondent for this case. Complainant contends that correspondence sent to the address information provided by “Domain Management SPM” was returned “undeliverable” indicating that the mailing address is fictitious. The WHOIS information for the previous registrant of the domain names associated with “Domain Management SPM” lists the registrant as “jb” with the same email address as the “Jason Banks” registrant. Complainant further alleges that the disputed domain names forward traffic through the same Cricket Communication Affiliate ID “cvid=1716.” Complainant also contends that the fact that the disputed domain names were all registered with the same Registrar, Wild West Domains provides further evidence of one respondent. The Panel does find that Complainant has presented sufficient evidence that the disputed domain names are controlled by the same entity and thus chooses to proceed with the instant proceedings. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has registered the CRICKET mark multiple times with the USPTO (i.e., Reg. No. 2,359,369 issued June 20, 2000). Previous panels have held that registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish a complainant’s rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the CRICKET mark through the registrations of the mark with the USPTO. See Expedia, Inc. v. Tan, FA 991075 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 29, 2007) (“As the [complainant’s] mark is registered with the USPTO, [the] complainant has met the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Paisley Park Enters. v. Lawson, FA 384834 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 1, 2005) (finding that the complainant had established rights in the PAISLEY PARK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through registration of the mark with the USPTO). Complainant alleges Respondent’s disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s CRICKET mark. The disputed domain names contain common misspellings of Complainant’s mark and the addition of the generic term “my” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” The Panel finds that misspellings, the addition of a generic term, and the addition of a gTLD fail to adequately distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant’s CRICKET mark. Therefore, the Panel concludes the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See Internet Movie Database, Inc. v. Temme, FA 449837 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 24, 2005) (finding that the respondent’s disputed domain names were confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark because the disputed domain names were common misspellings of the mark involving keys that were adjacent to the current keys comprising the complainant’s mark); see also NIIT Ltd. v. Parthasarathy Venkatram, D2000-0497 (WIPO Aug. 4, 2000) (finding that the “domain name ‘myniit.com,’ which incorporates the word NIIT as a prominent part thereof, is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade name and trademark NIIT”); see also Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 916991 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (“The mere addition of a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not serve to adequately distinguish the Domain Name from the mark.”). The Panel finds Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has alleged that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Once Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The Panel finds Complainant has made a sufficient prima facie case. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel may assume that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Panel will examine the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c). See Document Techs., Inc. v. Int’l Elec. Commc’ns Inc., D2000-0270 (WIPO June 6, 2000) (“Although Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant prove the presence of this element (along with the other two), once a Complainant makes out a prima facie showing, the burden of production on this factor shifts to the Respondent to rebut the showing by providing concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.”); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding it appropriate for the panel to draw adverse inferences from the respondent’s failure to reply to the complaint). Respondent’s disputed domain names resolve to Complainant’s website through Complainant’s affiliate program. Complainant alleges Respondent wrongy profits through the affiliate program. The Panel finds that this use of confusingly similar disputed domain names is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Barnesandnoble.com LLC v. Your One Stop Web Shop, FA 670171 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to divert Internet users attempting to reach the complainant’s website and in breach of the complainant’s affiliate program is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Sports Auth. Mich., Inc. v. Jablome, FA 124861 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 4, 2002) (by signing up for the complainant’s affiliate program upon registering the domain name, which was a misspelling of the complainant’s mark, the respondent intended to use the domain name to generate profit at the complainant’s expense, thereby evidencing a lack of rights and legitimate interests in the domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii)). Respondent has offered no evidence, and there is no evidence in the record, suggesting that Respondent is commonly known by any of the disputed domain names. Complainant asserts that Respondent has never been authorized or licensed to use the CRICKET mark. The WHOIS information identifies the Respondent as “Jason Banks” and “Domain Management SPM.” Complainant asserts that both names refer to the same Respondent, “Jason Banks.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ (c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark); see also Am. W. Airlines, Inc. v. Paik, FA 206396 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Respondent has registered the domain name under the name ‘Ilyoup Paik a/k/a David Sanders.’ Given the WHOIS domain name registration information, Respondent is not commonly known by the [<awvacations.com>] domain name.”). Moreover, Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names constitutes typosquatting. The disputed domain names all contain common typographical errors and misspellings of Complainant’s mark. The Panel finds that Respondent’s use of such domain names to redirect Internet users seeking Complainant’s website fails to establish rights or interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Microsoft Corp. v. Domain Registration Philippines, FA 877979 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 20, 2007) (concluding that by registering the <microssoft.com> domain name, the respondent had “engaged in typosquatting, which provides additional evidence that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also IndyMac Bank F.S.B. v. Ebeyer, FA 175292 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 19, 2003) (finding that the respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because it “engaged in the practice of typosquatting by taking advantage of Internet users who attempt to access Complainant's <indymac.com> website but mistakenly misspell Complainant's mark by typing the letter ‘x’ instead of the letter ‘c’”). The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant contends Respondent has engaged in a pattern of registering trademark-related domain names in bad faith. The Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in such a pattern of bad faith registration and use due to respondent’s registration of the instant one-hundred-fourteen disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Société Air France v. Mert, D2004-0759 (WIPO Dec. 3, 2004) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where the complainant provided evidence of a pattern of registration of “numerous other domain names” by the respondent); see also Harcourt, Inc. v. Fadness, FA 95247 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 8, 2000) (“Registration of more than one domain name that infringes on another’s registered mark(s) supports the inference that Respondent knew of Complainant’s marks upon registering the domain names . . . [and t]he registration of multiple domain names that infringe on Complainant’s trademarks is evidence of a pattern of conduct.”). Complainant alleges Respondent uses the disputed domain names to resolve to Complainant’s website. Complainant further asserts that Respondent profits from this use through Complainant’s affiliate program. Respondent is profiting from re-directing Internet users seeking Complainant and Complainant’s website. Therefore, the Panel finds that such use constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Deluxe Corp. v. Dallas Internet, FA 105216 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2002) (finding the respondent registered and used the <deluxeform.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by redirecting its users to the complainant’s <deluxeforms.com> domain name, thus receiving a commission from the complainant through its affiliate program); see also Sports Auth. Mich., Inc. v. Skander, FA 135598 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 7, 2002) (stating that “[b]y registering the ‘typosquatted’ domain name in [Complainant’s] affiliate program, Respondent profits on the goodwill of [Complainant’s] protected marks and primary Internet domain names,” and therefore registered and used the domain name in bad faith). Furthermore, Respondent’s disputed domain names show evidence of typosquatting through the use of common misspellings of Complainant’s CRICKETT mark. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent’s practice of typosquatting constitutes bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See K.R. USA, INC. v. SO SO DOMAINS, FA 180624 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 18, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the <philadelphiaenquirer.com> and <tallahassedemocrat.com> domain names capitalized on the typographical error of Internet users seeking the complainant's THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER and TALLAHASSEE DEMOCRAT marks, evincing typosquatting and bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also Zone Labs, Inc. v. Zuccarini, FA 190613 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 15, 2003) (“Respondent’s registration and use of [the <zonelarm.com> domain name] that capitalizes on the typographical error of an Internet user is considered typosquatting. Typosquatting, itself is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Therefore, the Panel finds Complainant has satisfied the elements of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <jmycricket.com>, <jycricket.com>, <kmycricket.com>, <m6cricket.com>, <m6ycricket.com>, <m7cricket.com>, <m7ycricket.com>, <mcricket.com>, <mcyricket.com>, <mgcricket.com>, <mgycricket.com>, <mhycricket.com>, <mkycricket.com>, <mtycricket.com>, <mucricket.com>, <muycricket.com>, <my6cricket.com>, <my7cricket.com>, <myc4icket.com>, <myc4ricket.com>, <myc5icket.com>, <myc5ricket.com>, <mycdicket.com>, <mycdricket.com>, <mycericket.com>, <mycficket.com>, <mycfricket.com>, <mycicket.com>, <mycr4icket.com>, <mycr5icket.com>, <mycr8cket.com>, <mycr8icket.com>, <mycr9cket.com>, <mycr9icket.com>, <mycrcket.com>, <mycrficket.com>, <mycri8cket.com>, <mycri9cket.com>, <mycricdket.com>, <mycricet.com>, <mycricfket.com>, <mycriciet.com>, <mycricjket.com>, <mycrick3et.com>, <mycrick3t.com>, <mycrick4et.com>, <mycrick4t.com>, <mycrickdet.com>, <mycrickdt.com>, <mycricke.com>, <mycricke3t.com>, <mycricke4t.com>, <mycricke5.com>, <mycricke5t.com>, <mycricke6.com>, <mycricke6t.com>, <mycrickedt.com>, <mycrickef.com>, <mycrickeft.com>, <mycrickeg.com>, <mycrickegt.com>, <mycrickest.com>, <mycricket5.com>, <mycricket6.com>, <mycricketf.com>, <mycricketg.com>, <mycrickewt.com>, <mycrickjet.com>, <mycricklet.com>, <mycrickmet.com>, <mycrickoet.com>, <mycrickset.com>, <mycrickst.com>, <mycrickt.com>, <mycrickwet.com>, <mycrickwt.com>, <mycriclket.com>, <mycricmet.com>, <mycricmket.com>, <mycricoet.com>, <mycricoket.com>, <mycricvket.com>, <mycridcket.com>, <mycrifcket.com>, <mycrifket.com>, <mycrijcket.com>, <mycriucket.com>, <mycrivcket.com>, <mycrixcket.com>, <mycrjcket.com>, <mycrjicket.com>, <mycrkcket.com>, <mycrkicket.com>, <mycroicket.com>, <mycrticket.com>, <mycruicket.com>, <myctricket.com>, <mycvricket.com>, <mycxricket.com>, <mydcricket.com>, <myfcricket.com>, <myfricket.com>, <mygcricket.com>, <myhcricket.com>, <myrcicket.com>, <myricket.com>, <mytcricket.com>, <myucricket.com>, <myvcricket.com>, <myxcricket.com>, <myxricket.com>, <nmycricket.com>, <ycricket.com>, and <ymcricket.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist Dated: August 25, 2009 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM
Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around jmycricket.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on FORUM-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.