Jerseymikes.space

The timeline behind jerseymikes.space

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

DECISION A Sub Above, LLC v. Abdeljabbar elaaraj Claim Number: FA2505002155152 PARTIES Complainant is A Sub Above, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Matthew J. Snider of Dickinson Wright PLLC, Michigan, USA. Respondent is Abdeljabbar elaaraj ("Respondent"), Morocco. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <jerseymikes.space>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB. 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. Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 12, 2025; Forum received payment on May 12, 2025. On May 13, 2025, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <jerseymikes.space> domain name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HOSTINGER operations, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On May 14, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 3, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@jerseymikes.space. Also on May 14, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On June 4 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant contends in part as follows: Complainant A Sub Above, LCC's predecessor in interest - Jersey Mike's Franchise Systems, Inc. - was formed in 1986 and began using the JERSEY MIKE'S name and mark with all of its sandwich shops. From there, Jersey Mike's began to expand rapidly opening new franchise locations across the US and internationally. By the start of 2020, Jersey Mike's had 1600 stores across 47 states in the US. In late 2024, Jersey Mike's celebrated the opening of its 3000th JERSEY MIKE'S-branded location. Complainant owns a US federal trademark registration for the mark JERSEY MIKE'S for restaurant and franchise services. Complainant also owns filings for JERSEY MIKE'S and marks incorporating the JERSEY MIKE'S name and mark in numerous jurisdictions around the world. Respondent's <jerseymikes.space> domain name was registered well after Complainant acquired rights JERSEY MIKE'S and secured registrations for the same. The domain name addresses a commercial website that prominently features Complainant's JERSEY MIKE'S trademark and logo. Respondent's website purports to offer a "Free Jersey Mike's Meal". In connection with said offer, Respondent's website features a timer that counts down from 5 minutes and states, "Hurry! Offer ends:" presumably when that timer reaches zero. On reaching zero, the countdown resets and repeats the countdown. Clicking on a "Claim Your Free Meal" button, redirects the site visitor to a third-party website that is flagged by anti-virus software as being malicious and thus blocked. By-passing the warning takes the visitor to the <trendndailyhunter.com> domain name and website. That website presents another offer of a free meal urging visitors to enter and confirm their email address then to "continue" to win the meal. Thereby, the visitor acknowledges its consent to receive certain third-parties' emails. Respondent presumably profits from putting internet users through such gyrations while the services offered along the way are illegitimate and in furtherance of phishing. Respondent's at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Respondent has strong enforceable rights in its JERSEY MIKE'S mark. The <jerseymikes.space> domain name contains Complainant's mark less it domain name impermissible space and apostrophe, followed by the <.space> top level. The differences between Complainant's trademark and Respondent's domain name do nothing to obviate the confusing similarity between the two. Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to register or use the at-issue domain name. In addition, neither Respondent nor the services promoted on Respondent's <jerseymikes.space> website or Respondent's redirect websites are affiliated with, associated with, or otherwise endorsed by Complainant. Instead, Respondent is using <jerseymikes.space> with a website and service that illegitimately seeks the personal information of unsuspecting internet users, or otherwise engages in unethical business practices to the reputational detriment of Complainant. Respondent is not, and was not, commonly known by <jerseymikes.space> or any name containing the JERSEY MIKE'S mark. Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) since Respondent is using the confusingly similar domain name in connection with a website that is calculated to lure internet users away from Complainant and divert them to Respondent's own online location in furtherance of an apparent phishing scheme and/or other scheme for Respondent's commercial gain. Respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith. Respondent is in violation of subparagraphs (iii) and (iv) of the Policy because there is no colorable rationale for use and registration of the at-issue domain name other than to (1) disrupt the business of Complainant by causing people to mistakenly believe they are visiting the legitimate online location of Complainant or an authorized affiliate, but over which Complainant has no control; or (2) attract for commercial gain, people to Respondent's <jerseymikes.space> or directed website under the false belief that it is an online location related to or endorsed by Complainant, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark. Further, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its trademark when it registered <jerseymikes.space> as a domain name. It is also impossible to conceive of any potential legitimate use of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is attempting to pass itself off as Complainant online. This too constitutes evidence of bad faith use and registration as does Respondent's use of the domain name in furtherance of phishing or other commercial scheme for Respondent's benefit. Additionally, where a domain name is obviously connected with a well-known name and product, its use by a party with no connection with the product suggests opportunistic bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the JERSEY MIKE'S trademark. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity. Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in its JERSEY MIKE'S mark. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant to disrupt Complainant's business and facilitate phishing. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." 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. 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(f), 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The at-issue domain is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant's USPTO registration for the JERSEY MIKE'S mark as well as any other national trademark registration for such mark establishes Complainant's rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy 4(a)(i). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant's USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Jimmy Yau, FA 1764034 (Forum Jan. 25, 2018) ("The Panel finds that complainant has rights in BLOOMBERG mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based upon its registration with multiple trademark agencies, including the USPTO."). Respondent's at-issue domain name consists of Complainant's JERSEY MIKE'S trademark less its domain name impermissible space and apostrophe, followed by the <.space> top-level domain name. The differences between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish the the domain name from Complainant's trademarks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <jerseymikes.space> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's JERSEY MIKE'S trademark. See, Roche Therapeutics Inc. v. Williams Shorell, FA 1684961 (Forum Aug. 30, 2016) ("Complainant asserts Respondent's <boniva.top> domain name is identical to the BONIVA mark. The addition of a generic top level domain to a mark does not differentiate the domain from said mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Rights or Legitimate Interests Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). The WHOIS information for <jerseymikes.space> reveals that "Abdeljabbar elaaraj" is the domain name's registrant and there is nothing in the record that shows that Respondent is, or ever was, known by the at-issue domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by <jerseymikes.space> under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). Respondent used the <jerseymikes.space> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and address a website featuring Complainant's trademark that pretends to offer a free JERSEY MIKE'S meal. Following the online instructions to receive the meal, the site visitor is pressed to navigate through a virtual internet gauntlet that bounces the free meal seeking visitor to further directive content likely exposing the visitor to online threats, requiring the visitor to give up its email address to Complainant, and be subject to certain third-party email, all on the pretense of receiving a free JERSEY MIKE'S meal. However, there is actually no free meal to be had. Such use of the <jerseymikes.space> domain name is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Summit Group, LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA 758981 (Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent's use of the complainant's LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect internet users to respondent's own website for commercial gain does not constitute either a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also, Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. I S / Internet Consulting Services Inc., FA 1785242 (Forum June 5, 2018) ("On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii)."). Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <jerseymikes.space>. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith. Respondent uses its confusingly similar domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and misdirect internet users seeking Complainant-and an offer of a free JERSEY MIKE'S meal-to Respondent's <jerseymikes.space> website and to redirect websites therefrom. Such websites display Complainant's trademarks and exploit the goodwill found in Complainant's trademarks by purporting to offer non-existent services related to Complainant's offerings. Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name to pass off as Complainant is disruptive to Complainant's business and demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the at-issue domain name under both Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) where the respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website upon which the respondent passes off as the complainant and offers online cryptocurrency services in direct competition with the complainant's business). Respondent also appears to be engaging in phishing. The <jerseymikes.space> website, which pretends to be affiliated with Complainant and pretends to confirm the award of a free JERSEY MIKE'S meal, is apparently used by Respondent to harvest third-party private data, i.e. email addresses, and or to cajole internet users to click-on self-serving hyperlinks or triggers from which Respondent may inappropriate benefit. Notably, Respondent's de facto misappropriation of Complainant's identity may be used by Respondent to prey on website visitor via an array of sham activities and schemes. See Hess Corp. v. GR, FA 770909 (Forum Sept. 19, 2006) (finding that the respondent demonstrated bad faith registration and use because it was attempting to acquire the personal and financial information of internet users through a confusingly similar domain name). Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in Complainant's JERSEY MIKE'S mark when it registered <jerseymikes.space> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's trademark and from Respondent's use of Complainant's trademark on webpages claiming to offer a free JERSEY MIKE'S meal. Respondent's registration and use of the confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in JERSEY MIKE'S further shows Respondent's bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii). See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name");see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name);see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). 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 <jerseymikes.space> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: June 5, 2025 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.