DECISION

 

SidePrize, LLC d/b/a PrizePicks v. David Wang / Arges

Claim Number: FA2601002197939

 

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 David Wang / Arges ("Respondent"), Nevada, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <prizepickspredict.com>, <prizepickspredictions.com>, and <prizepickspredicts.com> (collectively "Domain Names"), 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.

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 5, 2026; Forum received payment on January 5, 2026.

 

On January 6, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <prizepickspredict.com>, <prizepickspredictions.com>, and <prizepickspredicts.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 January 7, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 27, 2026 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@prizepickspredict.com, postmaster@prizepickspredictions.com, and postmaster@prizepickspredicts.com. Also on January 7, 2026, 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 by the January 27, 2026 deadline prescribed in its Written Notice, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On February 3, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.  On the same day Respondent submitted a late Response, its admissibility to be discussed later in this decision.

 

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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE:  DELINQUENT (LATE-FILED) RESPONSE

On February 3, 2026, upon the appointment of the Panel, Respondent filed a Response. This Response was filed several days after the last date on which the Respondent was entitled to do so, January 27, 2026 (noting that the Respondent had not sought any extension as provided in Rule 5(b).  The Panel has considered this issue and cannot identify any prejudice to the Complainant under the Policy as a result of the short delay in the filing of the Response, nor would consideration of the Response delay the decision. As such, bearing in mind its obligation to ensure that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present it case (Rule 10(b)) and its right to determine the admissibility of the evidence before it (Rule 10(d)), the Panel concludes that it is in the interests of justice that Response be considered for all appropriate purposes in coming to a decision in this proceeding.  See, for example, Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc. v. LaFond, FA 1362225 (Forum Jan. 7, 2011) (deciding that, while a response was deficient, "the Panel has nonetheless decided to consider the deficient Response").

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the Domain Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Since 2018 Complainant has provided daily fantasy sports services and related resources under the PRIZEPICKS mark and related marks. In September 2025 Complainant announced plans to launch a predictions market product, and on November 11, 2025 the Complainant issued a media release announcing the launch of its product on November 13, 2025, which it offers under the mark PRIZEPICKS PREDICT. 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 <prizepickspredict.com>, <prizepickspredictions.com>, and <prizepickspredicts.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's PRIZEPICKS mark. Respondent incorporates the PRIZEPICKS mark in its entirety and adds generic terms like "predict," "predictions," and "predicts" along with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <prizepickspredict.com>, <prizepickspredictions.com>, and <prizepickspredicts.com> domain names as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use the PRIZEPICKS mark in any way. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Domain Names are inactive, resolving to parking pages maintained by the Registrar.

 

Respondent registered and used the <prizepickspredict.com>, <prizepickspredictions.com>, and <prizepickspredicts.com> domain names in bad faith. The Domain Names resolve to an inactive webpage.  Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the PRIZEPICKS mark based on Complainant's long-term use of the mark and timing of the registration of a Domain Names. The <prizepickspredictions.com> domain name was registered on November 9, 2025, after the September date in which the Complainant announced its intention to enter into the prediction market, and the <prizepickspredict.com> and <prizepickspredicts.com> domain names were registered November 13, 2025 on the same day the Complainant commenced the offering of its predictions market product under the PRIZPICKS PREDICT name.

 

B. Respondent

The Respondent submits that prior to receiving notice of the dispute the Respondent had formulated a specific plan to use the Domain Names for a lottery prediction and news and information site.  The Respondent has no intention of building a fantasy sports product.  The Domain Names consist of a a series of descriptive terms and have never been used to impersonate Complainant or phish for third party details. Nor have they been advertised to be sold to a third party.

 

The timing of the registration of <prizepickspredictions.com> occurred before the Complainant filed its application to register the PRIZEPICKS PREDICT mark on November 25, 2025.  

 

The Response also provides a series of images which are said to show its planned website, however, contrary to the statements above the images appear to consist of a number of photos of NBA players and fantasy sports information. The Panel notes that Respondent has provided no third-party documentation or information supporting its claimed intent that predates the registration of the Domain Names.

 

FINDINGS

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

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has rights in the PRIZEPICKS mark based upon registration of the mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 6,032,925 registered April 14, 2020). Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently confers a complainant's rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO").").

 

The Panel finds that each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to the PRIZEPICKS mark as they each incorporate the entire PRIZEPICKS mark while adding generic terms such as "predicts" and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Such changes are insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name 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 Names. 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 Names 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 Names as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, 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 "David Wang / Arges" 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 Names in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Each of the Domain Names are inactive (either not resolving to an active website or resolving to a landing page with a "launching soon" graphic).  In the absence of any additional evidence inactive holding of a disputed domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  See CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. v. Yu-Hsien Huang, FA 1785415 (Forum June 6, 2018) ("Complainant demonstrates that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name as it resolves to an inactive website.  

 

The Panel has reviewed the Response and considers that the Respondent provides no coherent or supported explanation for the registration of the Domain Names or evidence for demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Names for a bona fide offering, and hence (for the reasons set out in the paragraph above) the Respondent's conduct is not by itself a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).  The Response asserts that the Domain Names were registered for a "lottery prediction and news and information site" but provides no explanation of its use of the Complainant's PRIZEPICKS mark for this service, no explanation why multiple Domain Names were required and no explanation for the timing of the registration of two of the Domain Names (corresponding to the Complainant's PRIZEPICKS PREDICT mark) the day Complainant launched PRIZEPICKS PREDICT service. Furthermore, the graphical images annexed to the Response do not indicate any demonstrable preparations to use as they appear to be stock footage or ai-generated and there is no evidence they were created prior to the commencement of the proceeding, nor do they provide any particular support to the Respondent's claimed business plan.  Were the Respondent's registrations motivated by a bona fide reason, the Respondent should have been able to provide a coherent and supported explanation for the reason behind the registration and the timing of the registration.  No such explanation is provided.

 

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

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Names, (November 9 and November 13, 2025), Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's PRIZEPICKS mark.  The Respondent has not provided a coherent and supported explanation for registering three domain names containing the PRIZEPICKS mark (two of which correspond with the Complainant's PRIZEPICTS PREDICT service and were registered on the day Complainant launched its service) in the absence of awareness of 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 notes that the actions of Respondent in this matter do not fall under the arguments set out in Policy ¶ 4(b). However, these arguments are merely illustrative rather than exclusive to support a finding of bad faith.  See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Admin - This Domain is For Sale on GoDaddy.com / Trnames Premium Name Services, FA 1714157 (Forum Mar. 8, 2017) (determining that Policy ¶ 4(b) provisions are mere illustrative of bad faith, and that the respondent's bad faith may be demonstrated by other allegations of bad faith under the totality of the circumstances).  It is well accepted that the elements of Policy ¶ 4(b) are not exclusive and that a Panel may consider all of the circumstances of a given case, including passive holding, in making its bad faith analysis.  See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, Case No. D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000) (after considering all the circumstances of a given case, it is possible that a "[r]espondent's passive holding amounts to bad faith"); Regions Bank v. Darla atkins, FA 1786409 (Forum June 20, 2018) ("Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) because Respondent uses the domain name to host an inactive website.").

 

Respondent has, without a coherent or supported explanation (or active use), registered a three domain names that are confusingly similar to the PRIZEPICKS mark and failed to actively use the Domain Names.  Inactive holding of a domain name can be evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and, after considering the totality of the circumstances (including the nature of the PRIZEPICKS mark, the Domain Names referring to the Complainant's PRIZEPICKS PREDICT service and the timing of the registration of the Domain Names) and in the absence of any coherent or supported explanation for the actions by the Respondent (or any possible good faith use of the Domain Name by Respondent), the Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that this inactive holding of the Domain Names amounts to use in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <prizepickspredict.com>, <prizepickspredictions.com>, and <prizepickspredicts.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: February 3, 2025