DECISION

 

SidePrize, LLC d/b/a PrizePicks v. Copamar Partners / Copamar Partners, S.L.

Claim Number: FA2502002141536

 

PARTIES

Complainant is SidePrize, LLC d/b/a PrizePicks ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Ashley N. Klein of Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP, United States. Respondent is Copamar Partners / Copamar Partners, S.L. ("Respondent"), Spain.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <prizepicked.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 24, 2025; Forum received payment on February 24, 2025.

 

On February 24, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by email to Forum that the <prizepicked.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 February 25, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 17, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@prizepicked.com. Also on February 25, 2025, 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.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On March 18, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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 states that it is the largest daily fantasy sports operator in North America. Its services include providing customers with the ability to win money based upon their fantasy sports lineups. Complainant has used the PRIZEPICKS mark in connection with its services since at least as early as 2018. Complainant owns various trademark registrations for PRIZEPICKS and related marks, including a United States trademark registration for PRIZEPICKS in standard character form that issued in 2020.

 

The disputed domain name <prizepicked.com> was registered in January 2025. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. The domain name resolves to a placeholder landing page. Complainant alleges, "upon information and belief," that Respondent registered the domain name to infringe on Complainant's rights, tarnish its reputation, and use the domain name to impersonate Respondent in email messages; and that Respondent is in fact using the domain name to conduct an illegitimate phishing scheme in which Complainant's customers are solicited to open an account and deposit funds that they then are unable to withdraw. Complainant further states (also "upon information and belief") that Respondent is not making active use of the domain name nor preparations for such use. Complainant alleges that Respondent had constructive knowledge of Complainant's PRIZEPICKS marks when it registered the disputed domain name, based upon Complainant's trademark registrations, and that Respondent's use of a privacy registration service to conceal its identity is evidence of bad faith. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not licensed to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <prizepicked.com> is confusingly similar to its PRIZEPICKS mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights, and that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Panel further finds that Complainant has failed to sustain its burden of proving that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

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 Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated Jan. 15, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <prizepicked.com> incorporates Complainant's registered PRIZEPICKS trademark, replacing the letter "S" with "ED" and appending the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., SidePrize, LLC d/b/a PrizePicks v. Cesar Saenz, FA 2141535 (Forum Mar. 19, 2025) (finding <betrprizepicks.com> confusingly similar to PRIZEPICKS); SidePrize, LLC d/b/a PrizePicks v. Jon Edelman / Ideas 4 Now, FA 2141540 (Forum Mar. 19, 2025) (finding <prize-picks.com> identical or confusingly similar to PRIZEPICKS); Agilent Technologies, Inc. v. Yong Leng, FA 2078358 (Forum Feb. 2, 2024) (finding <agilented.com> confusingly similar to AGILENT); Carvana, LLC v. Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, D2022-4636 (WIPO Jan. 27, 2023) (finding <carvaned.com> confusingly similar to CARVANA). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the domain name, nor to have engaged in preparations for such use, suggesting that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See, e.g., Huron Consulting Group Inc. v. Stephen David / huronconsulting, FA 2134260 (Forum Jan. 31, 2025) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that a domain name was acquired "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name." Under paragraph 4(b)(ii), bad faith may be shown by evidence that the domain name was registered "in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [Respondent] ha[s] engaged in a pattern of such conduct." Under paragraph 4(b)(iii), bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."

 

Initially, the Panel considers it important to express its frustration with Complainant's inclusion in the Complaint of allegations that appear to be unsupported by any discernable evidence or factual basis, prefaced by the phrase "upon information and belief."

 

Paragraph 3(b)(xv) of the Rules requires that the Complaint include "any documentary or other evidence . . . upon which the complaint relies." Unlike the complaint that initiates a legal action in many jurisdictions, a complaint in a UDRP proceeding is expected to do much more than merely give the respondent notice of the complainant's allegations.

 

In the UDRP proceeding, there is normally only a single pleading on each side, a complaint and a response, with strict time limits and page limits for each. There is normally no discovery procedure and no opportunity to present and examine witnesses in person. The complaint represents the only assured opportunity for the complainant to establish the three elements of its claim and meet its burden of persuasion on each. Thus, it is generally insufficient to make assertions "on information and belief" in a UDRP complaint. Instead, the complainant must cite the evidence submitted simultaneously to the UDRP panel and argue reasonable inferences therefrom. Only in exceptional cases will there be further opportunities to submit evidence or challenge the opposing party's evidence or arguments. 

 

Michael Jastremski v. Jaisen Mathai, DME2014-0006 (WIPO Nov. 10, 2014). See also Kaufman Realty & Auctions, LLC v. WEB REG / RARENAMES, INC., FA 2006249 (Forum Aug. 25, 2022) (distinguishing UDRP from notice pleadings in civil litigation).

 

The Panel is also troubled by Complainant's reliance upon constructive knowledge as a basis for bad faith. Under the Policy, constructive notice is insufficient; bad faith requires at least an inference that the Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant or its mark when registering the domain name. See UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, supra, § 3.4; e.g., Charter Communications Holding Co., LLC v. Nanci Nette, FA 1820262 (Forum Feb. 7, 2019).

 

In this case, the Panel finds no basis in the record for such an inference. Respondent is located in Spain, unlike the respondents in two other recent cases involving Complainant. See SidePrize, LLC d/b/a PrizePicks v. Jon Edelman / Ideas 4 Now, supra (ordering transfer of <prize-picks.com>); SidePrize, LLC d/b/a PrizePicks v. Cesar Saenz, supra (ordering transfer of <betrprizepicks.com>). Complainant has offered evidence of trademark registrations and applications only in the United States, and (apart from a single reference to "North America") has not suggested that its activities or reputation have an international reach.

 

Complainant's mark and the disputed domain name are both composed of two relatively common dictionary words, making it plausible that Respondent selected the domain name for reasons unrelated to Complainant. Complainant alleges only that its mark is "distinctive" and that it is unaware of similar names being used by others within the fantasy sports industry.

 

The fact that the disputed domain name was registered using a privacy registration service is relevant but only minimally probative of bad faith. Registrars routinely redact registrant data from public domain name registration records, and some registrars do so by substituting the name of a registrar-affiliated privacy registration service, as appears to have been the case here. See Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc. v. Hussain Ali Mirza, FA 1986334 (Forum Apr. 4, 2022) (noting legitimate reasons for use of a privacy registration service).

 

The Panel finds no support in the record for the claim that Respondent is using or intends to use the disputed domain name in connection with an illegitimate phishing scheme or for any other purpose related to Complainant or its mark, and declines to find that Respondent had any knowledge of Complainant or its mark at the relevant time.

 

Complainant has failed to prove that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

DECISION

Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

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

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: March 19, 2025