DECISION

 

SidePrize, LLC d/b/a PrizePicks v. Jake Hergott / Optimal Sports

Claim Number: FA2509002175256

 

PARTIES

Complainant is SidePrize, LLC d/b/a PrizePicks ("Complainant"), represented by Ashley N. Klein of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Jake Hergott / Optimal Sports ("Respondent"), Illinois, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

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

 

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.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 4, 2025; Forum received payment on September 4, 2025.

 

On September 4, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <prizepickscheatsheet.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 September 5, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 25, 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@prizepickscheatsheet.com. Also on September 5, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. Respondent did however send an email to the Forum, see below.

 

On September 26, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 and an award-winning, nationally recognized leader in fantasy sports, including fantasy esports, skill-based fantasy sports, and fantasy sports educational resources. Complainant has been continuously providing fantasy sports services since at least 2018. It provides its customers with the ability, among other things, to win money prizes based on their fantasy sports lineups. Complainant's PRIZEPICKS marks are distinctive and well known in the fantasy sports industry. Since its inception, Complainant has won over twenty awards, including back-to-back awards from Inc. 5000 in 2022 and 2023 recognizing Complainant as the fastest growing sports company and back-to-back listings on the Deloitte Technology Fast 500 in 2022, 2023, and 2024. Additionally, Complainant has partnered with the Dallas Stars, the Atlanta Braves, State Farm Arena, and the Stephen A. Smith Show, as well as MMA stars Sean O'Malley and Justin Gaethje and comedian Drew "Druski" Desbordes as brand ambassadors. Complainant asserts rights in the PRIZEPICKS mark through its registration in the United States in 2020. The mark is well known.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its PRIZEPICKS mark since it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic/descriptive terms "cheat sheet" and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized respondent to use its mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent created the resolving website to trade off Complainant's recognition and reputation in the marketplace and/or to perpetuate a phishing scam.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith because the disputed domain name attempts to impersonate Respondent in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Respondent used a privacy service.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. In its email to Forum, Respondent states, in pertinent part (emphasis added): "In exchange for a full release of claims from the Complainant, I, the Respondent, consent solely to the transfer of the disputed domain name <prizepickscheatsheet.com> (the "Domain Name") to the Complainant. This consent and release of claims is limited to the Domain Name only. I make no admissions of wrongdoing, owe no damages, fees, or other obligations to the Complainant, and I will not be filing a Response. Please send written confirmation of the Complainant's agreement to these terms."

 

FINDINGS

For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact.

 

DISCUSSION

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.

 

Paragraph 15(a) of 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."

 

Pursuant to Paragraph 4(i) of the Policy, the Panel's powers are limited to ordering or denying the transfer or cancellation of the disputed domain name.

 

Pursuant to Paragraphs 4(k) and 5 of the Policy, the parties are free to submit disputes, including those arising out of or in connection with the registration or use of the disputed domain name, to national courts.

 

Thus Respondent's requests for full release of claims are not receivable: they are outside the scope of the instant proceedings.

 

The instant proceedings relate only to the Complainant's request for transfer of the disputed domain name. Respondent has agreed to that transfer, albeit conditionally. However, for the reasons given above, Respondent's requests to attach conditions to the transfer are not receivable. Therefore the Panel will order that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant. See Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Carsten Gallini, FA 2024058 (Forum Jan. 9, 2023) ("The plain construction of Respondent's declarations is one of consent to transfer, as it similarly comports with Complainant's demand for transfer of the disputed domain. Therefore, Panel will recognize the twin requests of the parties."); see also CNH Industrial America LLC v. Eric Schoenfeld, FA 2010676 (Forum Sept. 12, 2022) ("In a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the Domain Name, but instead agrees to transfer the Domain Name to Complainant, the Panel is authorized to forego the traditional UDRP analysis. This Panel, in recognition of the common request of the parties, in the interests of judicial expedience, and in the absence of any aggravating circumstances, has so decided to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and to order an immediate transfer of the domain name.").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.

 

DECISION

For the reasons set forth above, it is Ordered that the <prizepickscheatsheet.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: September 26, 2025