Bodewelllawfirm.com

The timeline behind bodewelllawfirm.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.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Bodewell, LLC v. Manu Nair, Ace One Technologies / Robert Wells, Bodewell Law & Legal Services PLLC Case No. D2026-0850 1. The Parties The Complainant is Bodewell, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Maynard Nexsen PC, United States. The Respondents are Manu Nair, Ace One Technologies, United States, and Robert Wells, Bodewell Law & Legal Services PLLC, United States, self-represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <bodewelllawfirm.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 26, 2026. On February 27, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 27, 2026, 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 (Registration Private) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 3, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on March 5, 2026. 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 11, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 31, 2026. The Response was filed with the Center on March 12, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed W. Scott Blackmer as the sole panelist in this matter on April 16, 2026. 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 The Complainant is a law firm in Birmingham, Alabama, United States, organized as a limited liability company under Alabama law in March 2022. The firm practices in the fields of personal injury, construction accidents, medical malpractice, and workers compensation in the states of Alabama and Georgia. It has promoted its legal services online since May 2022 at “www.bodewell-law.com” (the “Complainant’s website”). The Complainant’s website is headed with a composite logo composed of a design plus the words BODEWELL INJURY GROUP in capital letters, which also appears on the firm’s building signage as seen on photos on the Complainant’s website. The Complainant claims to be the owner by assignment of United States Trademark Registration Number 7077067 (registered on June 6, 2023) for BODEWELL as a standard character mark in international class 45 (legal services). The online database of the United States Patent and Trademark Office shows that this mark is registered to “Nate Vanderveer” and does not report an assignment of ownership. The Complainant’s website shows that Nathan “Nate” VanDerVeer is one of the four lawyers at the Bodewell law firm and is named as the “founder”. Mr. VanDerVeer’s Declaration is attached to the Complaint, along with documentary attachments demonstrating that he is a member of the limited liability company and that he executed a trademark assignment of the BODEWELL mark to the Complainant effective February 1, 2024. The disputed domain name was created on February 26, 2025, and is registered to Manu Nair of Ace One Technologies, listing a postal address in Jonesboro, Arkansas, United States. The contact email address is [xxx]@aceonetechnologies.com. That domain name is also used for the Ace Technologies website, which promotes the company’s services as a web design and software development firm. The disputed domain name resolves to a one-page website advertising the “comprehensive” and “nationwide” legal services of “Bodewell Law and Legal Services, PLLC”, with a footer claiming copyright in that name and another footer reading, “Designed & Hosted by AceOne Technologies”. The single page is filled with stock photos and generic text. No lawyers are named, and unusually for a law firm, there is no mention of the jurisdictions in which the lawyers are located or licensed. The site characterizes the firm’s practice areas as follows: “The firm specializes in projects related to real estate development, entitlement consulting, insurance disputes, and other legal matters.” These are each described briefly in short paragraphs. There are no contact details given for the firm. The site provides a button instead that opens a separate app to “schedule a call”, as well as an online contact form. Manu Nair of Ace Technologies, the registrant of the disputed domain name, did not formally respond to the Complaint in this proceeding, but an individual called Robert Wells did, from a Gmail account, with a Response and attachments. Wells provides a copy of an Attorney’s License from the Supreme Court of Arkansas showing that he was licensed to practice law in that state on September 8, 2011, as well as a copy of a Certificate of Organization for Domestic LLC from the Arkansas Secretary of State, showing that he is a member of Bodewell Law & Legal Services, PLLC of Jonesboro, Arkansas, an entity registered on March 12, 2024. The Response states that Wells and another attorney, Adam Bodeker, initially owned Bodewell Law & Legal Services, PLLC, but Wells subsequently acquired the other attorney’s ownership interest in October 2024. The Response states that Bodewell Law & Legal Services, PLLC hired Ace One Technologies to register the disputed domain name, which the law firm has used for its business. The registrant of the disputed domain name on record subsequently sent an email to the Center requesting that Mr. Robert Wells be included in all correspondences regarding the case. page 3 Given these assertions of beneficial ownership and use of the disputed domain name, the Panel refers to Wells and Bodewell Law & Legal Services, PLLC hereafter collectively as the “Respondent”, and the website associated with the disputed domain name as the “Respondent’s website”. The Panel notes that the online database of the Arkansas Judiciary confirms that Robert Wells is currently licensed as an attorney in Arkansas and was admitted to the bar in 2011. The online database of the Arkansas Secretary of State also confirms the corporate details provided for Bodewell Law & Legal Services, PLLC. 1 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is “identical to Complainant’s BODEWELL mark”, which the Complainant has not given the Respondent permission to use. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not making a legitimate use of the disputed domain name but rather attempting to mislead consumers to “mistakenly believe that Respondent’s legal services originate from or are associated with or sponsored by Complainant”. The Complainant argues that the Respondent is seeking in bad faith to use the Complainant’s mark to promote legal services “in direct competition” with the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent contends that the Complainant has not satisfied all three of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. The Respondent contends that it is using the disputed domain name legitimately as it corresponds to the name of Wells’ law firm, Bodewell Law & Legal Services PLLC, and denies that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith to mislead consumers or compete with the Complainant. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar 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 name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark (the registered BODEWELL word mark) for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. There is sufficient evidence in the record, as discussed above, to establish the Complainant’s interest in this trademark registration for Policy purposes. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. 1 Noting the general powers of a panel articulated in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules, it is commonly accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record, as the Panel has done in these proceedings. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.8. page 4 Although the addition of other terms (here, “law firm”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. The Panel finds that, before notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondent used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.2. This finding is based on the fact that the Respondent’s website, although it provides minimal information, promotes the services of a licensed professional using the actual name of his registered professional corporation. (The Panel cannot find additionally that the Respondent has been “commonly known” by a name corresponding to the disputed domain name on this record, however, as there is no evidence concerning the Respondent’s business, advertising, or market recognition apart from the website and corporate registration. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.3.) The Panel finds accordingly that the second element of the Policy has not been established. This finding would be undermined, however, if the Panel were to find in the analysis of bad faith under the third element that the Respondent chose to do business under a name targeting the Complainant’s mark, so the Panel will proceed to an assessment of that element. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent is a solo practitioner in the State of Arkansas, ostensibly with a “national” and “comprehensive” practice but referring on his website mostly to real estate development, entitlement consulting, and insurance disputes. The Complainant is a four-lawyer firm that practices in the areas of personal injury, construction accidents, medical malpractice, and workers compensation in the states of Alabama and Georgia. The Respondent plausibly denies that they are competitors, and it is hard to see how this Arkansas lawyer would be poaching accident and injury clients from the Complainant’s practice in Alabama and Georgia. The Panel notes that the name of the Respondent’s firm, “Bodewell”, also plausibly derives from combining the last names of the two founders, Adam Bodeker and Robert Wells, and suggests, in English, a favorable result. Altogether, the Complainant does not make a persuasive argument that the Respondent most likely chose its corporate name and the corresponding disputed domain name in an attempt to target the Complainant’s trademark. The evidence in the case file as presented does not indicate that the Respondent’s aim in registering the disputed domain name was to profit from or exploit the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel finds the third element of the Policy has not been established. On the same facts, the Panel also confirms its finding on the second element of the Complaint. page 5 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied. /W. Scott Blackmer/ W. Scott Blackmer Sole Panelist Date: April 23, 2026

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