Cricket Communications, Inc. v. Standard Bearer Enterprises Limited c/o Standard Bearer
Claim Number: FA0908001279687
Complainant is Cricket Communications, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Lisa
M. Martens, of Fish & Richardson P.C.,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <cricketwireless.com>, registered with Enom, Inc.
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.
Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On September 11, 2009, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.
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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
Complainant is a subsidiary of Leap Wireless International, which provides communication services, including cell phone and wireless broadband services.
As of the end of fiscal year 2008, Complainant had approximately 3.84 million subscribers to the CRICKET-branded wireless services.
Complainant holds registrations of the CRICKET mark with the
United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 2,359,370, issued
Respondent is using the <cricketwireless.com>
domain name, registered
The resolving website displays links entitled “Cell Phone,” “Wireless Internet,” “Free Cell Phone,” and “High Speed Internet,” some of which links direct Internet users to Complainant’s direct business competitors.
Respondent’s <cricketwireless.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CRICKET mark.
Respondent does not have any rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name <cricketwireless.com>.
Respondent registered and uses the <cricketwireless.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding compliant with the requirements of the Policy. However, in the course of e-mail communications with the staff of the National Arbitration Forum, Respondent has recited that: “Standard Bearer agree to release the domain and will await the instructions to do so[.]” and “[a]s stated previously we are willing to work with the complainant to facilitate a transfer[.]”
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that, in the ordinary course, Complainant must prove each of the following to obtain from a Panel an order that a domain name be transferred:
i. the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
ii. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
iii. the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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.”
Further, Paragraph 14(b) of the Rules provides that, where a party fails to comply with requirements laid on by the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from that failure as it considers appropriate.
Respondent does not contest the material allegations of the Complaint, nor does Respondent object to Complainant’s request for the transfer to it of the subject domain name as prayed for in the Complaint. Thus the parties have tacitly agreed to the transfer of the subject domain name from Respondent to Complainant without the need for further proceedings. In the exceptional circumstances here presented, we conclude that no worthwhile purpose would be served by a rendition of findings otherwise customary in proceedings of this sort.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <cricketwireless.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED forthwith from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: September 15, 2009
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum