Cricket Communications, Inc. v. Global Cricket Ventures
Claim Number: FA1012001364860
Complainant is Cricket Communications, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Lisa M. Martens of Fish & Richardson P.C., California, USA. Respondent is Global Cricket Ventures (“Respondent”), represented by Holly Pranger of Pranger Law Group, California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <cricket.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.
The undersigned certify that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelists in this proceeding.
James Bridgeman, G. Gervaise Davis and Debrett Lyons (chair) as Panelists.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 22, 2010; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on December 22, 2010.
On December 27, 2010, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <cricket.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, Inc. 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 December 29, 2010, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 21, 2011 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@cricket.com. Also on December 29, 2010, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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.
Complainant requested, and was granted, a stay of these proceedings under Supplemental Rule 6(b)(i) until February 21, 2011. On February 18, 2011, Complainant requested the removal of the stay under Supplemental Rule 6(b)(ii). Complainant’s request was granted and the stay was lifted on February 18, 2011, resulting in February 28, 2011 becoming the due date for Respondent’s submission. On February 23, 2011, Respondent requested an extension pursuant to Supplemental Rule 6. Complainant consented to Respondent’s request and the deadline for Respondent’s submission was extended to March 21, 2011.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on March 21, 2011.
On March 30, 2011, pursuant to Respondent's request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed James Bridgeman, G. Gervaise Davis and Debrett Lyons as Panelists.
Both parties made additional submissions. Submissions (some out of time) were also received in response to a Panel Order dated April 8, 2011. Those submissions, whether received by the Forum in a timely manner or not, were all considered by the Panel in reaching its Decision.
Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Preliminary Issue: Concurrent Court Proceedings
The uncontested facts are that the same parties are involved in civil litigation in the District Court for the Southern District of California (Case No. 11CV0345 LAB WVG) (the “Civil Case”).
In situations where court action is proceeding in tandem with administrative proceedings under this Policy, the Panel has discretion whether or not to apply the Policy. Former panels have differed in the exercise of that discretion depending on the particular circumstances (see, e.g., eProperty Direct LLC v. Miller, FA 836419 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 3, 2007); Western Florida Lighting v. Ramirez, D2008-1122 (WIPO Oct. 2, 2008); Mary’s Futons, Inc. v. Tex. Int’l Prop. Assocs., FA 1012059 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 13, 2007); cf. AmeriPlan Corp. v. Gilbert, FA105737 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 22, 2002)).
The Civil Case was initiated by Complainant. It was filed on February 18, 2011, after the commencement of these administrative proceedings and involves, inter alia, claims for relief in respect of the disputed domain name. These matters were verified by evidence in response to the Panel Order dated April 8, 2011.
It is inappropriate for an administrative panel in these circumstances to give a decision on the merits when the matter is before a Court and there is the possibility of conflicting decisions in parallel proceedings.
In the circumstances described, the Panel decides that relief shall be DENIED but WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the re-filing of administrative proceedings regarding the same domain name in the future after a final decision in the Civil Case.
It is Ordered that the <cricket.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Debrett Lyons
James Bridgeman
G. Gervaise Davis
Panelists
Dated: April 21, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page