DECISION

 

SidePrize, LLC d/b/a PrizePicks v. Website Website / Website

Claim Number: FA2602002207719

 

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 Website Website / Website ("Respondent"), Spain.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <prizepickapp.com>, <prizepicksx.com>, <prizepickspromocode.com> and <prizepickspromo.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 February 27, 2026; Forum received payment on February 27, 2026.

 

On March 2, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <prizepickapp.com>, <prizepicksx.com>, <prizepickspromocode.com> and <prizepickspromo.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 March 3, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 23, 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@prizepickapp.com, postmaster@prizepicksx.com, postmaster@prizepickspromocode.com, and postmaster@prizepickspromo.com. Also on March 3, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On March 24, 2026, 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 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. 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 <prizepickapp.com>, <prizepicksx.com>, <prizepickspromocode.com> and <prizepickspromo.com> domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's PRIZEPICKS mark. Respondent incorporates the PRIZEPICKS mark (or a minor misspelling of the mark, removing the "s") in its entirety and adds generic terms like "promo code," "app," and "x" along with the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <prizepickapp.com>, <prizepicksx.com>, <prizepickspromocode.com> and <prizepickspromo.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. Instead, Respondent uses the Domain Names to pass off as Complainant and potentially commit a fraud on the Complainant's customers. Furthermore, the content of the website at the Domain Names ("Respondent's Websites") directly reproduce Complainant's logos and purport to offer similar services.

 

Respondent registered and used the <prizepickapp.com>, <prizepicksx.com>, <prizepickspromocode.com> and <prizepickspromo.com> domain names in bad faith. Respondent uses the Domain Names 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 Names with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the PRIZEPICKS mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

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.

 

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 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 either (in the case of <prizepicksx.com>, <prizepickspromocode.com> and <prizepickspromo.com>) incorporate the entire PRIZEPICKS mark or (in the case of <prizepickapp.com>) incorporate a minor misspelling of PRIZEPICKS mark (removal of the "s") while (in both cases) adding generic terms such as "x" or "app" 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 Morgan Stanley v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1783121 (Forum June 1, 2018) ("Respondent's <morganstanle.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's MORGAN STANLEY mark as it wholly incorporates the mark, but for the omission of the letter 'y' and spacing within the mark, and appends the '.com' gTLD."); see also 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 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 "Website Website / Website" 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 Names resolve to the Respondent's Websites that offer online gambling services under the PRIZEPICKS mark (and Complainant's logos) in direct competition with Complainant's gambling/daily sports fantasy services. The Respondent's Websites also provide information about the Complainant actively and incorrectly asserting that they are the Complainant. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a webpage that passes off as a complainant to offer competing services does not amount to 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 Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant's mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).  See also General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that "use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant's business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(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 Names (December 28, 2025) Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant and Complainant's use of the PRIZEPICKS mark since the Respondent's Websites offer services in direct competition with Complainant and reproduce various aspects of Complainant's trade dress including multiple logos, indicating an awareness of Complainant at the time of registration. Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register four domain names that wholly incorporate the PRIZEPICKS mark (or a minor misspelling of the PRIZEPICKS mark) and use them to redirect visitors to essentially identical websites offering competing gambling services under the Complainant's marks 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 Names in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant's PRIZEPICKS Mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Names to resolve to a website offering gambling services that may mislead consumers into thinking that Respondent, or any service offered by the Respondent, is in some way connected to the Complainant.  Using a confusingly similar domain name to trade upon the goodwill of a complainant can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). See also Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.").

 

 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 <prizepickapp.com>, <prizepicksx.com>, <prizepickspromocode.com> and <prizepickspromo.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: March 24, 2026