DECISION

 

Jamul Indian Village Development Corporation v. Matthew Anderson

Claim Number: FA2508002173770

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Jamul Indian Village Development Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Barry F. Soalt of Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves and Savitch LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Matthew Anderson ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <hazardousjamul.com>, registered with IONOS SE.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Steven M. Levy as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 26, 2025; Forum received payment on August 26, 2025.

 

On August 28, 2025, IONOS SE confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <hazardousjamul.com> domain name is registered with IONOS SE and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. IONOS SE has verified that Respondent is bound by the IONOS SE 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 August 28, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 17, 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@hazardousjamul.com. Also on August 28, 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 September 18, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy 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 is a tribal enterprise of the Jamul Indian Village of California, a federally recognized Indian tribe, which owns and operates a casino in Southern California. Since its initial launch and continuing today, Complainant's goods and services are marketed nationally to attract customers to its casino, hospitality, and recreational facilities. In addition, Complainant utilizes various forms of marketing and distribution channels to promote its goods and services, including online advertisements. Complainant owns a number of U.S. trademark registrations that incorporate the term JAMUL including Reg. No. 5492318 for JAMUL dated June 12, 2018 and Reg. No. 5572233 for JAMUL CASINO dated September 25, 2018. It also owns the domain name <jamulcasino.com> which was registered on September 14, 2003 and this is used as the address of its legitimate website.

 

The <hazardousjamul.com> domain name, registered on July 29, 2024, is confusingly similar to the JAMUL mark in that it incorporates the entirety of the mark and adds only the generic word "hazardous" and the ".com" TLD.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name and it registered the domain name through a privacy service. 

 

The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where the domain name was registered without Complainant's authorization and the sole purpose of the website associated with it is to disparage Complainant and Respondent does not use the website for bona fide, non-commercial, legitimate criticism.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.  However, email correspondence was received by the Forum on August 28 and 29, 2025. In response to the Notice of Complaint, Respondent writes:

 

Good afternoon, Carmen. I am not sure who mistakenly provided you with this email address, but I or it are not associated with whatever you have going on here. I am going to politely request that you refrain from sending any more communications to this email address. Thank you.

 

After Forum responded to this message stating that "the Holder of a Domain Name Registration is defined as the single person or entity listed in the registration information, as verified by the Registrar, at the time of commencement", Respondent sent a further email which states:

 

Please provide a copy of all the information you received and from whom, which, according to you, is "the Registrar of the disputed domain name" so that I may look into this matter further. After reviewing the website, there is an email address, I am assuming affiliated with the owner of the website, on the website, which is where your emails should be going. If these types of emails continue, I will simply block all emails coming from the domain name adforum.com and procopio.com. Thank you.

 

Forum referred Respondent back to the information provided in the Notice of Complaint. Respondent's final email to Forum states:

 

Please see the following email just received from the Registrar of this domain name. I am going to politely once again request that you stop sending emails to this email address, as you obviously have received bad information from whoever has involved you in this matter. I will not be responding to any future emails and will block your email address and domain name after sending this response. Thank you for respecting this request.

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

IONOS has not and will not disclose any personal ownership data regarding hazardoujamul.com or any other domain names privately registered with IONOS. We respect our customers' privacy. If you received UDRP papers from ICANN in error, it is possible someone obtained your information via fraudulent and incorrect means. If so, this was done without IONOS involvement or support and you may take legal action.

 

Sincerely,

Ionos, Inc.

Legal Department

 

FINDINGS

-       Redaction of Respondent's name is not warranted in the present case;

-       Complainant owns registered trademark rights to its JAMUL mark and the <hazardousjamul.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the mark;

-       Complainant has failed to make a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where the subject website contains content that is critical of Complainant and its services and is thus protected under principles of free speech; and

-       There is insufficient evidence upon which to conclude that Respondent registered or is using the disputed domain name in bad faith based on its posting of content that is critical of Complainant and its services.

 

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 substantive 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").

 

PRELIMINARY MATTER – Redaction of Respondent's Name

In certain situations, Panels may elect to redact the name of a party to protect an innocent person from unfair public exposure of its involvement in a legal proceeding. According to Policy ¶ 4(j), "[a]ll decisions under this Policy will be published in full over the Internet, except when an Administrative Panel determines in an exceptional case to redact portions of its decision." The rationale for restriction to exceptional cases has been explained as being due to the fact that "[p]ublication of party names in UDRP decisions is useful to the overall functioning of the UDRP process which is designed to be transparent in that it helps to explain the panel's findings, supports jurisprudential consistency, educates others, aims to promote good behavior in the domain name space, and furthermore can be used to illustrate a pattern." ANI Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. J. K., D2025-1989 (WIPO July 22, 2025).

 

Panels have redacted party names for a number of reasons that are deemed to satisfy the exceptional case requirement. See , e.g., The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc v. [Redacted], FA 1282153 (Forum Oct. 28, 2009) ("Respondent claims to have been a victim of identity theft, asserting (with supporting evidence) that Respondent's name was used fraudulently to register the disputed domain name, and that Respondent has attempted unsuccessfully to close or modify the domain name registration account that was opened by a third party in Respondent's name."); [Name Redacted] v. ludashi us / jack zhang, FA 2009845 (Forum Oct. 1, 2022) (Complainant's name redacted where disputed domain name "resolves to a Chinese language website promoting pornography" and Complainant expressed fear for her personal safety stating that "I do not want my name to hold any association with the explicit obscene content on the website in question…"). Of course, a Panel must also consider the possibility that redaction is being requested by a cybersquatter seeking to avoid having its name associated with an adverse UDRP decision. Locust Point Capital, Inc. v. Ariel Cpa, FA 2169296 (Forum Aug. 29, 2025) (Redaction request declined where "the e-mail does not provide any documentary support for the assertion that they have been hacked").

 

When considering the question of whether or not to redact a party's name in an exceptional case, this Panel proposes consideration of the following factors:

 

-       Has redaction been expressly requested by a party?;

-       Is there evidence of identity theft?;

-       Which specific elements of the WHOIS record are suspected of being falsified?;

-       Are there circumstances which suggest that disclosure or confirmation of a party's identity could risk physical or serious reputational harm to that party?;

-       Has a complainant acted with a high degree of malice in bringing an abusive claim against an innocent and unsuspecting party?; and

-       Are there indications that redaction is being improperly requested by a party that is seeking to avoid responsibility for its activity?

 

Here, an individual using the same email address as that shown for the Registrant of the <hazardousjamul.com> domain name engaged in the above-mentioned exchange of correspondence with Forum stating, in particular, "I am not sure who mistakenly provided you with this email address" and "you obviously have received bad information". While there is no express request for redaction from Respondent, its statements do imply that it is claiming to not be the owner of the disputed domain name thus raising the suspicion of identity theft. However, the Panel notes that it is not simply the Registrant Name, Address, or Phone that are at issue in the WHOIS record for the disputed domain name but the Registrant Email. Registrant names, postal addresses, and phone numbers are rarely used by registrars to communicate with their customers and so it is not uncommon for these less critical fields to be falsified by cybersquatters. However, the email field is quite important as it is the primary method by which registrars communicate with their customers and using a forged email address could imperil one's ownership of a domain name by delaying important correspondence (e.g., notice of impending expiration or transfer) or even risk allowing access to one's registrar account by an unrelated individual who actually owns the forged email address via a "forgot password" reset. Further, as the disputed domain name was registered over one year ago, there is a likelihood that the individual who has corresponded with Forum has also received emails from the concerned Registrar but there is no indication that it has taken any steps to inquire as to why it is receiving such correspondence. Next, one could speculate whether there are any circumstances here which suggest that disclosure or confirmation of the Respondent's name could risk harm to that individual (e.g., a threat to its safety or creating a blemish on its credit score or employment background checks) but there is no evidence to suggest this here. Further, while the present Complaint is flawed, it does not appear to have been brought with a high degree of malice or in an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking or to steal a domain name from an innocent and unsuspecting registrant. Finally, the Panel does not find significant evidence that this is a situation in which a cybersquatter is improperly seeking to dodge responsibility for any nefarious activity.

 

While the matter is not crystal clear, on balance of the above-mentioned factors, the Panel finds that the goals of transparency in the UDRP process outweigh the limited risks to the individual named as Respondent here and so it will not redact Respondent's name in this decision.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant asserts rights in the JAMUL mark through its registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum  Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Here, Complainant provides copies of its registration certificates and so the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in its asserted mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Next, Complainant argues that Respondent's <hazardousjamul.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the JAMUL mark because it incorporates the entirety of the mark and adds only the preceding word "hazardous" and appends the ".com" TLD. Where a mark is incorporated into a domain name, the addition of a generic or descriptive term typically does not negate any confusing similarity with an asserted mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."). See also MTD Products Inc v. Mike Kernea / Skyline, FA 1775278 (Forum Apr. 19, 2018) ("The mere addition of a gTLD is inconsequential and does not avoid a finding of identity."). As the entirety of the JAMUL mark is clearly discernable in the <hazardousjamul.com> domain name, and only the generic term "hazardous" and the ".com" TLD are added to the mark, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

While the Panel takes note of the fact that the term "hazardous" may be viewed to create a derogatory connotation, the reality is that self-deprecating advertising is not uncommon by brand owners and use of this word, alone, is not sufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the threshold test applied under the Policy which "typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name." WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition

("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0"), at par. 1.7 and 1.13. Thus, although the addition of the term "hazardous" bears on the assessment of Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(ii) and (iii), the addition of this term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant's mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The WHOIS record identifies Respondent as "Matthew Anderson", Complainant states that Respondent uses the domain name without authorization, and there is no other indication that Respondent is commonly known by any terms related to <hazardousjamul.com>.

 

The Complaint goes on to assert that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name "because it registered the Domain Name through a privacy service" and it cites decisions holding that, due to the use of such a service, a respondent cannot acquire rights to a domain name because it "has done nothing to publicly associate itself with the domain name". See, e.g., State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Tulip Trading Company, FA 1701155 (Forum Dec. 12, 2016). While use of a WHOIS privacy service may impact consideration of whether a respondent is commonly known by a particular domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), the Panel is not of the view that the use of such a service, in an of itself, prevents the existence of rights or legitimate interests in total as other factors must be considered.

 

One of those factors is whether Respondent is "making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue." Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). It has long been recognized that critical commentary is protected by the Policy so long as it is "genuine and noncommercial" and is not "primarily a pretext for cybersquatting, commercial activity, or tarnishment." WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, ("WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0") at 2.6.1. Further, "UDRP legislative history confirms that the Policy was never intended to restrict legitimate free speech use of domain names: 'Domain name registrations that are justified by legitimate free speech rights would likewise not be considered to be abusive'". UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, § 2.10 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org)., citing, par. 172 of "Final Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process". Finally, "[i]f a domain registrant intends to criticize the mark owner it has to be out-front about it. It has to signal that the resolving website is not affiliated with the mark owner." The Clash Of Trademarks And Domain Names On The Internet, at 10.02-B.5.iii.c (Gerald M. Levine, Legal Corner Press, 2025). Screenshots of the <hazardousjamul.com> website have been submitted and the heading states "Jamul Casino | Crackheads, Cancer & Crime". This is followed by an essay titled "Deep spirituality, rich traditions, mother earth and fleecing Californians of $100,000,000,000!!!" which contains many statements that are highly critical of certain Jamul tribe members, the Jamul Casino Resort (including the environment of the casino and some of the patrons or other individuals claimed to be present there), and the regulatory and tax structure under which the casino operates. The site also includes portions of negative user reviews of the casino that appear to have been copied from Google. Complainant asserts that "Respondent's sole purpose in establishing the website associated with the Domain Name [is] to cast aspersions and slanderous remarks in order to retributively harm Complainant's business" and that "the Domain Name [is not] used merely to express Respondent's genuine opinion of Complainant's business, or to offer a neutral forum for third-party reviews of Complainant's business." In considering the matter, this Panel adopts the view expressed in Roman Polanski v. Matan Uziel, D2022-4360 (WIPO Jan. 26, 2025), i.e., "[i]t is not the Panel's role, nor within its capacity, to rule on whether the criticism is right or wrong; the question before the Panel is whether the disputed domain name is being genuinely used for a fair use purpose." To that end, the Panel notes that there is no evidence of any commercial activity on Respondent's website and there is also no indication that the site is used as a subterfuge for cybersquatting activity. The Complaint claims that "Respondent uses the JAMUL and JAMUL CASINO marks to propound false and misleading statements about Complainant's casino, hospitality, and recreational services" but it provides no further details, evidence, or context in support of its contentions. As such, the Panel must take the presented evidence at face value and it finds both that the content of the website makes it immediately apparent that it is a source of criticism that does not originate with Complainant, and that there is no indication or evidence that Respondent's site is disingenuous, commercial, or was created with an ulterior motive beyond expressing criticism of Complainant and its casino. Thus, Complainant has not made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As the Complaint is dismissed for the reasons given in the above section, the Panel need not fully analyze this element of the Policy. See Record Connect, Inc. v. Chung Kit Lam / La-Fame Corporation, FA 1693876 (Forum Nov. 3, 2016) (finding that the issue of bad faith registration and use was moot once the panel found the respondent had rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). Nevertheless, for the reasons stated in the above section, the Panel finds in the record no evidence that the disputed domain name was registered or is being used in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <hazardousjamul.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

__________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

Steven M. Levy, Panelist

Dated: September 22, 2025