Draft-kings.casino

The timeline behind draft-kings.casino

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 DK Crown Holdings Inc. v. Rita Edward Claim Number: FA2508002174111 PARTIES Complainant is DK Crown Holdings Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Lawrence R. Robins of FisherBroyles LLP, USA. Respondent is Rita Edward ("Respondent"), Italy. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <draft-kings.casino> (the "disputed domain name"), registered with Devexpanse Ltd. 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. Lynda M. Braun as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 28, 2025; Forum received payment on August 28, 2025. On August 28, 2025, Devexpanse Ltd confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <draft-kings.casino> disputed domain name is registered with Devexpanse Ltd and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Devexpanse Ltd has verified that Respondent is bound by the Devexpanse Ltd 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 September 3, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 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@draft-kings.casino. Also on September 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 September 24, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Lynda M. Braun 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant A global leader in the fields of sports entertainment, daily fantasy sports, online sports betting, and online gaming, Complainant is a Delaware corporation formed in 2011 under the name DraftKings Inc. Complainant and its related entities have facilities worldwide, including in the United States of America ("United States"), Ireland, Israel, Bulgaria, and the United Kingdom, employing approximately 5,000 individuals worldwide. Complainant owns several registered trademarks through the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), including, but not limited to: DRAFTKINGS, United States Registration No. 4,308,819, registered on March 26, 2013, in International Class 41 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the "DRAFTKINGS Mark"). As a result of Complainant's continuous and exclusive use and promotion of its DRAFTKINGS Mark, Complainant has established a strong customer base and has built up value and goodwill, which goodwill extends throughout the United States and elsewhere worldwide. Complainant also owns the domain name <draftkings.com>, which resolves to Complainant's official website through which it operates an online casino business. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to the DRAFTKINGS Mark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name was registered on August 4, 2025, long after Complainant's first use of its DRAFTKINGS Mark, and resolves to a website that mimics Complainant's website where it attempts to pass off as Complainant, where it prominently displays Complainant's mark and logo. When a user clicks on any of the links on that website, they are taken to a competitor's website, called Ducky Luck Casino. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds that Complainant has registered trademark rights in the DRAFTKINGS Mark as described above. The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's DRAFTKINGS Mark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used 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 disputed domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and (3) the disputed 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 Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the DRAFTKINGS Mark as set forth below. It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain names. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 1.7. The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the DRAFTKINGS Mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., DRAFTKINGS, United States Registration No. 4,308,819, registered on March 26, 2013, in International Class 41). Registration of a trademark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in a mark under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Samy Yosef / Express Transporting, FA 1738124 (Forum July 28, 2017) (finding that registration with the USPTO was sufficient to establish complainant's rights in the HOME DEPOT mark). The Panel also finds that Respondent's disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the DRAFTKINGS Mark under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i), as the disputed domain name incorporates the trademark in its entirety, albeit with the portion "draft" joined with a hyphen to "kings," and then followed by the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".casino". Adding a hyphen to a trademark in a disputed domain name, as here, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See Sports Auth. Mich. Inc. v. Batu 5, FA 176541 (Forum Sept. 23, 2003) ("The addition of a hyphen to Complainant's mark does not create a distinct characteristic capable of overcoming a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) confusingly similar analysis."). In addition, adding a gTLD, a technical requirement of a domain name, to a complainant's mark, also does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). See Elenie Reese v. Eddie Morgan, FA 917029 (Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (the mere addition of a generic Top-Level Domain, such as ".com", is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a trademark). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) has been established by Complainant. Rights or Legitimate Interests 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 disputed domain name under Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it has 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 interests 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."). As Respondent did not formally respond to the Complaint, Respondent cannot have carried its burden to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel notes that, given the facts here, Respondent would have been hard-pressed to furnish availing arguments had it chosen to respond. Here, the Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as Respondent has not provided evidence nor proven that it is commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the DRAFTKINGS Mark. Moreover, Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement from or association with Complainant. Further, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the disputed domain name resolves to a website that attempts to pass off as Complainant's, resolving upon clicking, to a competing website that displays the DRAFTKINGS Mark and logo. Respondent uses the DRAFTKINGS Mark, leading Internet users to believe that they have arrived at Complainant's site. Such registration of a domain name for the purpose of diverting online traffic premised on consumer confusion is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(c)(i). Respondent uses the disputed domain name to perpetuate a scheme that involves deceiving consumers seeking Complainant and its website and diverting them to a competing casino website while attempting to appear as though the disputed domain name emanates from Complainant and its official website. Thus, Respondent uses the disputed domain name in connection with a website that is obviously designed to mislead consumers into thinking that it is Complainant's own website as part of a scheme to trick those consumers into thinking it belongs to Complainant. See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy paragraph 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."). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii) has been established by Complainant. Registration and Use in Bad Faith The Panel concludes that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith as set forth below. First, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name to disrupt Complainant's business. Use of a disputed domain name in this manner supports a finding of bad faith. Second, the Panel concludes that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its DRAFTKINGS Mark when registering the disputed domain name. It strains credulity to believe that Respondent had not known of the Complainant or its DRAFTKINGS Mark when registering the disputed domain name, especially since the disputed domain name contains the DRAFTKINGS Mark in its entirety, with the two parts joined by a hyphen, and then followed by the gTLD ".casino". Knowledge of a complainant's trademark prior to registering a disputed domain name is sufficient to find bad faith under Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum February 6, 2014) (finding actual knowledge due to the domain name chosen and the use made of it); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Butler, FA 744444 (Forum August 17, 2006) (finding bad faith where the respondent was "well-aware" of the complainant's YAHOO! mark at the time of registration). Third, the use of a disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to a respondent by creating a likelihood of confusion with a complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the registrant's website or online location is evidence of registration and use in bad faith. Bad faith under Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv) can be found where a respondent uses a domain name that is confusingly similar to a complainant's mark to falsely indicate an association with a complainant. See AOL LLC v. iTech Ent, LLC, FA 726227 (Forum July 21, 2006). In sum, the Panel concludes that the circumstances of this case, including the fact that the disputed domain name is being used to resolve to a website in which Respondent attempts to pass off as and compete with Complainant, the failure of Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use, and the implausibility of any good faith use to which the disputed domain name may be put, support an inference of bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii) has been established by Complainant. 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 <draft-kings.casino> disputed domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Lynda M. Braun, Panelist Dated: September 24, 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.