Unrivaledactive.com

The timeline behind unrivaledactive.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 Unrivaled, LLC v. macdonaldr macdonaldr Claim Number: FA2608002237705 PARTIES Complainant is Unrivaled, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Carolyn Juarez of NOD Law PC, Colorado, USA. Respondent is macdonaldr macdonaldr ("Respondent"), Massachusetts, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <unrivaledactive.com> ('the Domain Name'), registered with TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown. 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 August 5, 2026; Forum received payment on August 5, 2026. On August 8, 2026, TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <unrivaledactive.com> Domain Name is registered with TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown has verified that Respondent is bound by the TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown 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 August 12, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 1, 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@unrivaledactive.com. Also on August 12, 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 2, 2026 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne as Panelist. On September 2, 2026 Panelist requested further information as to the reputation of the Complainant's mark which was provided on September 9, 2026. Following no Response from the Respondent to this evidence proceedings continued. 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's contentions can be summarised as follows: The Complainant is a 3-on-3 women's professional basketball league. It was co-founded in 2023 by the Women's National Basketball Association (WNBA) stars Breanna Stewart and Naphesa Collier to give players top-tier domestic play opportunities during the WNBA offseason, salaries, and equity in the league. Upon founding, the Complainant began using the UNRIVALED trademark to raise funding from investors and promote the league. By January 2025, the Complainant had more than USD35 million in funding from investors. In August 2026, the Complainant raised more than $100 million in a series funding round that valued the league at $650 million. That valuation was nearly double the $350 million valuation set in September 2025 when the Complainant completed its last capital raise. The Complainant's investors include high-profile investors such as former National Basketball Association (NBA) stars Carmelo Anthony and Steve Nash, current NBA star Stephan Curry, former United States soccer stars Alex Morgan and Megan Rapinoe, and United States tennis stars Coco Gauff and Serena Williams. The Complainant also has official corporate partnerships and sponsorships with major global brands, including Sephora, Sprite, Miller Lite, DraftKings, Morgan Stanley, PwC, Ally Financial, Adobe, and Wilson Sporting Goods. The Complainant's first season began on January 17, 2025, with 36 players on six teams based in geographic locations across the United States. The Complainant's second season began on January 5, 2026, with 54 players on eight teams based in geographic locations across the United States. The Complainant markets and advertises the UNRIVALED mark through television viewership, in-person attendance at games, online through its website, and on social media. During the first season, the Complainant sold more than 14,000 tickets to its regular season games, tournament, and playoff games. During the second season, the Complainant sold more than 52,000 tickets to its regular season games, tournament, and playoff games. The Complainant has an extensive digital presence and has generated 17.6 billion brand impressions across platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, X, and YouTube consisting of game highlights and behind the scenes content. The Complainant has a six-year media rights deal with TNT. The Complainant is the second most-viewed pro women's sports property. The average television audience for a team game of the Complainant is nearly 200,000, with a record high audience of nearly 400,000. Complainant's games draw thousands of in-person attendees, with a high attendance record of 21,490 for a game in Philadelphia. The Complainant has been covered in hundreds of online and print media publications, including USA Today, ABC News, Forbes Magazine, Boardroom, Fast Company, The Hollywood Reporter, The New York Times, Yahoo Sports, CBS Sports, The Associated Press, Variety, ESPN, Fox News, Sports Illustrated, Ebony Magazine, Dallas News, Kansas City Star, Bloomberg.com, IndyStar, and the Miami Herald. The Complainant's trademark applications for UNRIVALED and UNRIVALED and Design are currently suspended in view of prior pending trademark applications owned by Sandlot Youth Sports Holdings, LLC and/or a trademark registration owned by The Pennsylvania State University. The Complainant has entered into coexistence agreements with Sandlot Youth Sports Holdings, LLC and The Pennsylvania State University, which it expects to submit to the USPTO to overcome the suspensions and/or any likelihood of confusion refusal and will lead to issuance of registrations for the UNRIVALED and UNRIVALED and Design trademarks. The Complainant is the owner of common law rights in the trade mark UNRIVALED for goods and services relating to sport due to extensive usage as set out above since at least 2025. The Domain Name registered in 2026 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's UNRIVALED mark adding only the generic word 'active' and the gTLD .com which do not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's mark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is not authorised by the Complainant. The Domain Name has been used to point to a site impersonating the Complainant using the Complainant's mark in its logo form in its masthead and taking material from the Complainant's site. This is not a bona fide offering of services or a noncommercial legitimate fair use. It is opportunistic registration and use in bad faith to confuse Internet users for phishing purposes. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding or to respond to the additional evidence filed by the Complainant. FINDINGS The Complainant is the owner of common law rights in the trade mark UNRIVALED in relation to sporting services since 2025. The Domain Name registered in 2026 has been used to point to a site using the Complainant's mark in its logo form in its masthead and taking material from the Complainant's site to impersonate the Complainant. The site now bears a warning for phishing. 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 3.1 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 The Domain Name consists of the mark UNRIVALED (in which the Complainant owns common law rights for its goods and services relating to sport since 2025), the generic term 'active' and the gTLD .com. 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 addition of the generic term 'active' does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's mark. A gTLD does not serve to distinguish a domain name from a 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). The panel holds that the addition of the gTLD .com does not prevent confusing similarity between the Complainant's UNRIVALED mark and the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's UNRIVALED mark. 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 UNRIVALED 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 use of the Domain Name is commercial, so is not legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The web site attached to the Domain Name uses the Complainant's UNRIVALED mark in its logo form as its masthead and material taken from the Complainant's web site to suggest it is a site of the Complainant. It does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection with the Complainant. The Panel finds this use is deliberately confusing to impersonate the Complainant. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See iFinex Inc. v Yuri Heifetz/Genie-Solution, FA 1789385 (Forum July 9, 2018) (holding that the respondent's mimicking the complainant's web site in order to cause existing or potential customers of the Complainant's to believe they are dealing with the complainant is prima facie evidence of the respondent's lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). Further, the purpose of the web site appears to be phishing. See DaVita Inc. v. Cynthia Rochelo, FA 1738034 (Forum July 20, 2017) ("Passing off in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use."). The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as presented 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 In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent's site was confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably have believed that it was connected to or approved by the Complainant as it used the Complainant's UNRIVALED mark in its logo form as its masthead and material taken from the Complainant's website to suggest it was a site of the Complainant. The use of the Complainant's logo, and material taken from the Complainant's web site shows that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its rights, business and products. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See Allianz of AM. Corp v Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website). Further, using a disputed domain name for phishing is bad faith. See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc. v. LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA 1625750 (Forum July 17, 2015) ("Respondent uses the <klabzuba-oilgas.com> domain to engage in phishing, which means Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). 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 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 <unrivaledactive.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Dawn Osborne, Panelist Dated: September 14, 2026 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.