Playprizepick.com

The timeline behind playprizepick.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION SidePrize, LLC d/b/a PrizePicks v. ipul erna Claim Number: FA2502002138724 PARTIES Complainant is SidePrize, LLC d/b/a PrizePicks ("Complainant"), represented by Ashley N. Klein of Morris, Manning & Martin, LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is ipul erna ("Respondent"), Massachusetts, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <playprizepick.com> ('the Domain Name'), registered with NameCheap, Inc. 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. Dawn Osborne as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 5, 2025; Forum received payment on February 5, 2025. On February 5, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <playprizepick.com> Domain Name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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"). On February 6, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 26, 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@playprizepick.com. Also on February 6, 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 February 27, 2025 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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 The Complainant is the owner of the mark PRIZE PICKS registered in the United States for sports betting services since 2020 with first use recorded as 2018. The Domain Name registered in 2024 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark omitting the letter 's', and adding the generic word 'play' and the gTLD .com, none of which prevents the said confusing similarity. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant. The Domain Name has been used for a page appearing to be an official site of the Complainant using the Complainant's mark with the Complainant's logo as a masthead, text taken from the Complainant's web site and featuring a log in screen. This is phishing and does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use. It is registration and use in bad faith diverting Internet users for commercial gain in actual knowledge of the Complainant's rights. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of the mark PRIZE PICKS registered in the United States for sports betting services since 2020 with first use recorded as 2018. The Domain Name registered in 2024 has been used for a page appearing to be an official site of the Complainant using its mark with the Complainant's logo as a masthead, text taken from the Complainant's web site and featuring a log in screen. 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 The Domain Name registered in 2024 consists of a misspelling of the Complainant's mark (registered, inter alia, in the USA since 2020 and used since 2018 for sports betting services) omitting the letter 's', and adding the generic word 'play' and the gTLD .com. The Panel agrees that misspellings, such as the omission of a letter 's' in this case, does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy. See Twitch Interactive Inc. v Zhang qin, FA 1626511 (Forum Aug 4, 2015). Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic term to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). The Panel agrees that the addition of the generic word 'play' to the Complainant's mark does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy. The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark). Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy with a mark in which the Complainant has rights. As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The web site attached to the Domain Name has been used for a page appearing to be an official site of the Complainant using its logo as a masthead, text taken from the Complainant's site and featuring a log in screen. The site appears to be impersonating the Complainant to gather information for phishing purposes. Under Policy 4(c)(i) and (iii), the use of a disputed domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. I S / Internet Consulting Services Inc., FA 1785242 (Forum June 5, 2018) ("On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii)."). The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein. As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent uses the Domain Name to engage in apparent phishing. The use of a disputed domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme is considered evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) ("[T]he screenshot of the resolving webpage allows users to input their name and email address, which Complainant claims Respondent uses that to fraudulently phish for information. Thus, the Panel agrees that Respondent phishes for information and finds that Respondent does so in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). Respondent has used a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant's PRIZE PICKS mark to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain, thereby disrupting the Complainant's business. See Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain name in question was obviously connected with the complainant's mark, creating a likelihood of confusion for commercial gain). Further the use of the logo of the Complainant in the masthead of the Respondent's phishing web site and text taken from the Complainant's web site shows that the Respondent has actual knowledge of the Complainant, its rights, business and services and is also designed to cause further confusion. As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv). 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 <playprizepick.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dawn Osborne, Panelist Dated: February 27, 2025 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.