Westmore · UDRP DecisionAccelajobs.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <accelajobs.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to Complainant’s ACCELA trademarks, that Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that the domain was registered and used in bad faith. Decisive evidence included a website mimicking Complainant’s website and emails impersonating a Complainant employee in connection with purported job opportunities and phishing.
The timeline behind accelajobs.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
This decision illustrates the strong evidentiary significance of a trademark-plus-“jobs” domain used for fake recruitment. The finding did not rest on the domain’s wording alone: the mimicking website and employee-impersonation email connected the domain directly to an apparent phishing scheme, supporting both the absence of legitimate interests and bad-faith registration and use.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Accela, Inc. v. Redacted for Privacy, Withheld for Privacy ehf/ alfred williams Case No. D2021-3775 1. The Parties Complainant is Accela, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by Hanson Bridgett LLP, United States. Respondent is Redacted for Privacy, Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland/ alfred williams, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <accelajobs.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 11, 2021. On November 11, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 11, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on November 12, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on November 12, 2021. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 15, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 5, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on December 6, 2021. The Center appointed Timothy D. Casey as the sole panelist in this matter on December 15, 2021. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background Complainant is a more than 20-year-old software company based in San Ramon, California, in the United States that provides automated software, cloud-based platforms, and related technology for state and local governments. Complainant works with numerous governments in the United States and has over 1,500 active developers. Complainant has numerous trademark registrations, including the following United States registered trademarks that wholly incorporate ACCELA (the “ACCELA Mark”): Mark International Class(es) Registration No. Registration Date ACCELA 35 2,875,166 August 17, 2004 ACCELA AUTOMATION 35 2,940,668 April 12, 2005 ACCELA 9, 42 4,050,156 November 1, 2011 ACCELA (DESIGN) 9, 42, 45 4,689,296 February 17, 2015 ACCELA CIVIC PLATFORM 9, 42 5,069,024 October 25, 2016 Complainant owns the <accela.com> domain name and features information about Complainant and its various products and services through a website associated with that domain name. Complainant’s employees use email addresses that incorporate the <accela.com> domain name. The disputed domain name was registered on October 28, 2021. The disputed domain name has been used for email representing Respondent or someone associated with Respondent as an employee or otherwise associated with Complainant. The disputed domain name has also been used in conjunction with a website that mimics Complainant’s website, utilizes one or more of the ACCELA Marks, and promotes a number of job openings allegedly for positions with Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, which includes one or more of the ACCELA Marks in their entirety, is confusingly similar to the ACCELA Marks, and that the addition of the descriptive word “jobs” after “accela” was selected to trick innocent third parties into believing that Respondent is associated with Complainant. Complainant provided a copy of an email using the disputed domain name that was sent on November 3, 2021 to a potential job applicant in which Respondent or someone associated with Respondent impersonated an employee of Complainant, offered a job with Complainant to the potential job applicant, and phished for information from the potential job applicant. Complainant further contends that Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the ACCELA Marks, or to register the disputed domain name, and Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by or as the ACCELA Marks. Complainant contends that Respondent’s scheme to trick third parties into believing Respondent is Complainant by mimicking Complainant’s website and using the disputed domain name in emails soliciting confidential information and money from third parties is fraudulent and is therefore not a bona fide offering of goods and services nor a noncommercial or fair use of the ACCELA Marks. Complainant believes Respondent is using the disputed domain name in a deliberate attempt to deceive third parties by copying Complainant’s website and posing as an employee of Complainant’s organization. Complainant further contends that Respondent intentionally registered the disputed domain name as part of a fraudulent scheme, namely to fraudulently obtain information and money by deceiving Complainant’s potential job applicants. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant’s use of the ACCELA Marks as early as 2001, more than 20 years prior to registration of the disputed domain name, and Complainant’s registration of many ACCELA Marks since 2004, are more than sufficient to establish that Complainant has trademark rights in the ACCELA Marks. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the ACCELA Marks and is confusingly similar to the ACCELA Marks. Complainant contends that the addition of the word “jobs” after “accela” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity to Complainant’s ACCELA Marks. The Panel agrees and finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ACCELA Marks. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the disputed domain name or the ACCELA Marks. Complainant has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use or register the disputed domain name. Regardless of what Respondent’s true intention may have been in contacting the potential job applicants of Complainant under false pretenses using the disputed domain name, that impersonating use alone is sufficient to support the Panel’s conclusion that Respondent’s use was not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use and does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent’s fake website associated with the disputed domain name only further supports this finding. Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s prima facie case and has provided no arguments or evidence showing potential rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the nature of the disputed domain name, comprising the ACCELA Marks and an additional word that is within Complainant’s field of commerce or indicating services (i.e., employment) related to the ACCELA Marks, or which is not obviously critical, carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant as it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant, and accordingly cannot constitute a fair use in these circumstances. See section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“ WIPO Overview 3.0 ”). Finally, Complainant has provided evidence that the disputed domain name is being used in connection with a fraudulent phishing scheme via emails; such use can never confer rights or legitimate interests on Respondent. See in this regard WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.13. For these reasons, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Given i) the timing of Complainant’s first use and first registration of the ACCELA Marks and Complainant’s use of the ACCELA Marks in association with the noted goods and services, ii) the nature of the disputed domain name, wherein the use of “jobs” with “accela” in combination with a fake website and fraudulent emails appears designed to trick potential job applicants, iii) the subsequent timing of the registration of the disputed domain name, iv) Complainant’s prior trademark rights in the United States, and v) evidence of Respondent’s subsequent usage, the Panel finds that Respondent clearly knew of the ACCELA Marks at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name was therefore in bad faith. In addition, the Panel finds the subsequent usage of the disputed domain name, the fake website, and the sending of email communications impersonating an employee of the Complainant, to constitute use in bad faith consistent with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <accelajobs.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Timothy D. Casey Sole Panelist Date: December 31, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around accelajobs.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.