DECISION

 

SidePrize, LLC d/b/a PrizePicks v. xyz Hasan

Claim Number: FA2512002192102

 

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 xyz Hasan ("Respondent"), Bangladesh.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <prizepickscoin.com> ("Domain Name"), registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu.

 

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.

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 2, 2025; Forum received payment on December 2, 2025.

 

On December 3, 2025, Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <prizepickscoin.com> domain name is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu 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 3, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 23, 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@prizepickscoin.com. Also on December 3, 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 December 26, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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

Since 2018 Complainant has provided daily fantasy sports services under the PRIZEPICKS mark, a logo mark consisting of a modified form of the letter "P" and other trademarks such as PICK. PREDICT. PLAY and IT'S GOOD TO BE RIGHT. Complainant has rights in the PRIZEPICKS mark through its registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 6,032,925 registered April 14, 2020).  Respondent's <prizepickscoin.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's PRIZEPICKS mark, only differing by the addition of the descriptive word "coin" and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <prizepickscoin.com> domain name as it is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is neither an authorized user or licensee of the PRIZEPICKS mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the Domain Name for any bona fide offer of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the Domain Name for a website ("Respondent's Website") that is part of a broader business (including Telegram and X accounts) where Respondent passes off as Complainant by including links to Complainant's official website, reproducing Complainant's various marks and a logo that is similar to the Complainant's logo. Respondent's conduct is either aimed at offering similar or related services to those offered by the Complainant or commit a fraud on the Complainant's customers.

 

Respondent registered and uses the <prizepickscoin.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the Domain Name to divert Internet users away from Complainant's business, which may invoke bad faith disruption and attraction for commercial gain. Respondent may be engaging in an illegitimate phishing scheme. Additionally, Respondent registered the Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the PRIZEPICKS mark given the use of Complainant's marks and reference to Complainant at various locations on the Respondent's Website.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights for the PRIZEPICKS mark.  The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's PRIZEPICKS mark.  Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name 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 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has rights in the PRIZEPICKS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 6,032,925 registered April 14, 2020).  Registration with the USPTO can sufficiently establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a national trademark authority).

 

The Panel finds that the <prizepickscoin.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the PRIZEPICKS mark as it merely adds the generic word "coin" and the ".com" gTLD to Complainant's wholly incorporated PRIZEPICKS mark.  The addition of a generic term and a gTLD is insufficient to distinguish a domain from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis.  See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (finding top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.

        

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the PRIZEPICKS mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA 1621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name).  The WHOIS lists "xyz Hasan" as registrant of record.  Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The Domain name resolves to the Respondent's Website that appears to offer some sort of cryptocurrency or token under the PRIZEPICKS mark. The Respondent's Website states that the Respondent's token assists users in participating in fantasy sports betting (the Complainant's services) and is offered under the Complainant's mark. The Respondent's Website and related promotional accounts also reproduce various other marks owned by the Complainant and contain references to the Complainant and/or links to the Complainant's official website leading to the conclusion that the Respondent seeks to pass itself off as the Complainant or related to the Complainant for the purposes of offering competing or related services to the Complainant's gambling/daily sports fantasy services. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a webpage that offers goods or services that compete with a complainant or are related to a complainant's services does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; indeed it provides a false impression that the Respondent is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant. See Upwork Global Inc. v. Shoaib Malik, FA 1654759 (Forum Feb. 3, 2016) (finding that Complainant provides freelance talent services, and that Respondent competes with Complainant by promoting freelance talent services through the disputed domain's resolving webpage, which is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).  See also Spike's Holding, LLC v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1736008 (Forum July 21, 2017) ("Using a confusingly similar domain to display unrelated content can evince a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use… The Panel therefore finds that Respondent's unrelated use of the <finishnline.com> domain name evinces a lack of rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).").  

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that at the time the Respondent registered the Domain Name (September 8, 2025) Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and Complainant's use of the PRIZEPICKS mark since the Respondent's Website reproduces various marks held by the Complainant, makes reference to the Complainant and contains a link to the Complainant's website. Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register a domain name that wholly incorporates the PRIZEPICKS mark and use it to redirect visitors to a website offering cryptocurrency tokens relating to daily sports fantasy services other than to take advantage of Complainant's reputation in the PRIZEPICKS Mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

        

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant's PRIZEPICKS Mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Name to resolve to a website offering services that may mislead consumers into thinking that Respondent, or any service offered by the Respondent, is in some way connected to the Complainant.  The use of the Domain Name for commercial purposes not directly competitive to the Complainant can indicate bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv). See PopSockets LLC v. san mao, FA 1740903 (Forum Aug. 27, 2017) (finding disruption of a complainant's business which was not directly commercial competitive behavior was nonetheless sufficient to establish bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Forum Feb. 16, 2007) ("The Panel finds such use to constitute bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), because [r]espondent is taking advantage of the confusing similarity between the <metropolitanlife.us> domain name and Complainant's METLIFE mark in order to profit from the goodwill associated with the mark.").  

 

 The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <prizepickscoin.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: December 29, 2025