DECISION

 

Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. v. Dyjon Franklin

Claim Number: FA2608002237685

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Brian L. Heidelberger of Loeb & Loeb LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Dyjon Franklin ("Respondent"), Texas, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <2kcourtvision.com> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with Name.com, Inc.

 

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 L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

On August 7, 2026, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <2kcourtvision.com> domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, Inc. 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").

 

Complainant submitted an Amended Complaint on August 17, 2026, following the Registrar's disclosure of the underlying registrant information.

 

On August 17, 2026, Forum served the Amended Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 14, 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@2kcourtvision.com. Also on August 17, 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 September 15, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider 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 alleges:

 

That it is a multi-platform developer, publisher and marketer of interactive entertainment, and that its 2K publishing label has released entertainment properties across a range of genres, including its NBA 2K basketball simulation game. Complainant began using its 2K marks in 2005 and has spent substantial sums advertising and promoting them.

 

That it owns registrations for its 2K marks in the United States and in numerous other jurisdictions, including United States Registration No. 4,455,047 for 2K, registered December 24, 2013; that several of its United States registrations have attained incontestable status; and that a prior panel has recognized Complainant's rights in the marks.

 

That the Disputed Domain Name <2kcourtvision.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's 2K marks because it incorporates the 2K mark in its entirety and adds only the descriptive terms "court," referring to a basketball court, and "vision," referring to the analytical tools offered at the website resolving from the Disputed Domain Name, together with the gTLD ".com," none of which distinguishes the Disputed Domain Name from the marks.

 

That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by "2K Court Vision," has never been licensed or authorized to use Complainant's 2K marks, and is not affiliated with Complainant. The website resolving from the Disputed Domain Name displays Complainant's 2K marks throughout and monetizes tools built around Complainant's game, inviting users to upload screenshots of the game and selling by subscription the means to evaluate player builds and so to obtain information that would otherwise be learned only through authorized gameplay, in violation of Complainant's Terms of Service and Player Code of Conduct. Such use is illegal and is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

 

That Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Respondent's repeated references to Complainant's game, and its statement that the website's data was extracted directly from that game, show that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's 2K marks when it registered the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name to attract Internet users, for commercial gain, to a website offering unauthorized tools, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's 2K marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of that website, and thereby deprives Complainant of revenue.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds the following:

 

USPTO records in evidence show that Complainant owns United States Registration No. 4,455,047 for the standard-character mark 2K, registered December 24, 2013 in International Classes 9, 16 and 41, with first use in commerce recorded in January and February 2005, together with further United States registrations for 2K PLAY and for 2K design marks issued from 2006 onward. Complainant's annual report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2025, also in the record, records total net revenue of $5,633.6 million for that year and describes the NBA 2K series as Complainant's flagship basketball franchise. On that evidence the Panel finds the 2K mark long registered and well established in the field of interactive entertainment; it is unnecessary to decide the wider claim that the mark is famous.

 

The WHOIS record shows that the Disputed Domain Name was created on February 4, 2026, and that it was registered behind a privacy service, the registrant appearing as "Redacted For Privacy" care of Domain Protection Services, Inc. of Denver, Colorado. The Registrar's verification identifies the underlying registrant as Dyjon Franklin of San Antonio, Texas. Apart from the name "2KCV" under which the website itself trades, nothing in the record suggests that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by "2K Court Vision," and on the uncontested record Complainant has neither licensed nor otherwise authorized Respondent to use its 2K marks.

 

Screenshots in the record, captured on July 25, 2026, show that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website (the "Respondent's Website") operating under the name "2KCV" and the page title "2KCV - NBA 2K Stats Tracker." The landing page of the Respondent's Website is headed "Your 2K Stats Verified & Tracked" and invites visitors to upload screenshots of their games so that the site may extract and verify their playing statistics. The Respondent's Website carries pages headed Stats, Players, Leaderboards, Highlights, Pricing and "2K26 Tools," and it sells monthly subscriptions at $10 and $20 alongside a free tier.

 

A further page of the Respondent's Website in the record, headed "NBA 2K26 Build Creator," invites users to plan a player build and states that "[e]very calculation uses data extracted directly from NBA 2K26" and that the attribute caps, ratings and costs it reports "have all been reverse-engineered from the actual game code." That page directs users to Respondent's paid plans. Complainant's Terms of Service and its NBA 2K Player Code of Conduct, both in the record, prohibit the commercial exploitation of the game's content and the use of software or other means to gain an unfair advantage in play. The terms of service of the Respondent's Website state that "NBA 2K, PlayStation, Xbox, and related marks are trademarks of their respective owners" and that "2KCV is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by 2K Sports, Sony, Microsoft, or the NBA." A footer in small print on the landing page likewise describes 2KCV as an independent fan site not affiliated with, endorsed by, or connected to Complainant, 2K Sports, Visual Concepts or the NBA.

 

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 3.1 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 established rights in the 2K mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration on the USPTO's Principal Register. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.2.1. A prior panel has likewise recognized Complainant's rights in the mark. See Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. and World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. v. Daniel Hinkles, D2017-0994 (WIPO July 21, 2017).

 

The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the 2K mark in its entirety and adds the words "court" and "vision" and the gTLD ".com." Both added words point toward Complainant's field of activity rather than away from it: a court is the playing surface of the basketball game Complainant publishes under the mark, and "vision" describes the insight into that game which the Respondent's Website offers. The mark remains the dominant and recognizable element of the Disputed Domain Name. See Michelin North America, Inc. v. Energie Media Group, FA 1451882 (Forum Aug. 7, 2012) (added terms relating directly to the complainant's business did not prevent a finding of confusing similarity). The gTLD ".com" is a technical requirement of registration and is disregarded under the first element. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.11.1.

 

The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's 2K mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, at which point the burden shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of such rights or interests. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 2.1.

 

The Registrar's verification identifies Respondent as Dyjon Franklin, and there is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by "2K Court Vision" for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii); the use of the name "2KCV" on the website is the conduct complained of and cannot itself supply the right. See Novo Nordisk A/S v. aditi sharma, FA 2227366 (Forum July 9, 2026) (respondent not commonly known by the domain name where the WHOIS lists an unrelated personal name and the complainant has not authorized use of its mark).

 

Nor is the use shown in the record a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent's Website is a commercial subscription service whose entire subject matter is Complainant's game, marketed under Complainant's mark: the mark appears in the Disputed Domain Name, in the name and logo of the site and in its landing-page headline. A service of that character, offered without authority and monetized by subscription, is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See A. O. Smith Corporation v. jin li / lijin, FA 2213242 (Forum Apr. 22, 2026) (a commercial gaming website of a type monetized through paid subscriptions, in-game purchases or advertising was neither a bona fide offering nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).

 

The disclaimer on the Respondent's Website of any affiliation with or endorsement by "2K Sports" does not assist Respondent. It appears in the site's terms of service and in small print in the footer of its pages, in each case reached only after the visitor has arrived, and it cannot dispel the impression of association that the Disputed Domain Name and the site's masthead have already created. Complainant invites the further finding that Respondent's conduct is illegal. The record establishes the unauthorized commercial exploitation of Complainant's mark and of its game content contrary to Complainant's published terms, which is sufficient for present purposes, and the Panel makes no finding as to whether that conduct is unlawful under any national law.

 

Complainant has made a prima facie showing, and Respondent, by defaulting, has come forward with nothing to rebut it. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on February 4, 2026, more than twenty years after Complainant began using the 2K mark in commerce and more than twelve years after its registration issued. The Respondent's Website is given over to Complainant's NBA 2K game, names that game repeatedly, and, on the build-creator page in the record, states that its calculations use data "extracted directly from NBA 2K26" and figures reverse-engineered from the game's code. Respondent therefore registered the Disputed Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant and of the 2K mark. See Nintendo of America Inc. v. Adrien Hémery, FA 1892061 (Forum May 25, 2020) (actual knowledge of the complainant's mark shown by the respondent's use of the domain name for a website offering cheats and modifiers for the complainant's video games).

 

By selling subscriptions at the Respondent's Website under a domain name and a brand built on the 2K mark, Respondent intentionally attempts to attract Internet users to that website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website and of the services sold there. That is bad faith registration and use within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Mediacom Communications Corporation v. xu shuaiwei, FA 2089938 (Forum Apr. 18, 2024) (bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the disputed domain name resolved to a website hosting links to services of the kind the complainant offers under its mark).

 

Complainant contends in addition that Respondent's service deprives it of sales within the game. The record contains no evidence of lost sales, and the Panel makes no finding of disruption under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii); bad faith is established on the ground stated above.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith under 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 <2kcourtvision.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated: September 15, 2026