Acclynx.com, Www-acculynx.com

The timeline behind acclynx.com

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

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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 Exactlogix, Inc. v. Mehmet Ali Sert and Casey Morgan Case No. D2026-1463 1. The Parties The Complainant is Exactlogix, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by WilliamsMcCarthy L L P, United States. The Respondents are Mehmet Ali Sert, Türkiye, and Casey Morgan, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars The disputed domain name <acclynx.com> is registered with Atak Domain Hosting Internet ve Bilgi Teknolojileri Limited Sirketi d/b/a Atak Teknoloji. The disputed domain name <www-acculynx.com> is registered with Spaceship, Inc.(collectively, the “Registrars”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 7, 2026. On April 8, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars requests for registrar verification in connection with the two domain names. On April 9, 2026, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification responses, disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent (Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 10, 2026, with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrars, requesting the Complainant to either file separate complaint(s) for the disputed domain names associated with different underlying registrants or alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in fact the same entity and/or that all domain names are under common control. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on April 10, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 16, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, page 2 the due date for Response was May 6, 2026. The Respondent Mehmet Ali Sert sent email communications to the Center on April 10, April 14, and April 15, 2026. On May 7, 2026, the Center informed the Parties of the commencement of the panel appointment process. The Center appointed Assen Alexiev as the sole panelist in this matter on May 19, 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 doing business as “AccuLynx.com”. It is a provider of the AccuLynx cloud-based roofing contractor software, offering a comprehensive CRM and business management platform purpose-built for roofing professionals. The Complainant operates its official website at the domain name <acculynx.com>. The Complainant is the owner of the United States trademark registration for ACCULYNX with registration No. 3886987, registered on December 7, 2010, for goods and services in International Classes 9 and 42 (the “ACCULYNX Trademark”). The disputed domain names were registered on July 23 and July 28, 2025. The disputed domain name <acclynx.com> is currently inactive. According to the evidence provided by the Complainant, at the time of its filing that disputed domain name resolved to a website that was offering Google platform accounts via cryptocurrency, with contact via WhatsApp account. The disputed domain name <www-acculynx.com> resolves to a blog-style website prominently displaying the Complainant’s ACCULYNX trademark and discussing its AccuLynx platform, with a link to “Login”. It also features a disclaimer. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant states that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its ACCULYNX trademark, because one disputed domain name incorporates the ACCULYNX mark in its entirety and the second one is an obvious typographical variant of the trademark. The Complainant notes that the disputed domain name <acclynx.com> omits the letter “u” from ACCULYNX, resulting in a misspelled version of the ACCULYNX trademark, where the same remains easily recognisable. According to the Complainant, the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, because they are not commonly known by them, and the Complainant has not authorised them to use the ACCULYNX trademark. The Complainant states that there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondents, and “acclynx” and “www-acculynx” have no independent meaning and correspond to nothing other than a variation of the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant maintains that there is no bona fide offering of goods or services, as the disputed domain name <acclynx.com> is being used to sell Google platform accounts via cryptocurrency, and this has no connection to the roofing software industry and no connection to the Complainant; and the disputed domain name <www-acculynx.com> is being used to operate a website that impersonates the Complainant’s official platform, displaying the ACCULYNX mark and logo without authorization. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. It points out that the ACCULYNX trademark was registered in 2010, while the disputed domain names were registered in 2025, which is fifteen years later. The Complainant notes that by 2025, its AccuLynx platform had been operating as the leading roofing software platform for over a decade, had surpassed USD 50 billion in contracts managed through it, and was widely recognised in the construction software industry. page 3 The Complainant points out that the disputed domain names are not words, phrases, or abbreviations with any plausible independent meaning, but a purely typographical variant of the ACCULYNX trademark. According to the Complainant, no legitimate registrant would have selected these strings without awareness of the Complainant’s trademark. According to the Complainant, the inconsistency in geographic identity markers is indicative of a registration designed to obscure the true registrant identity. The Complainant states that the disputed domain names are being actively used in bad faith. The Complainant notes that the disputed domain name <acclynx.com> hosts an active commercial website selling Google Ads accounts, Google Ads Threshold accounts, Google Play developer console access, and Gmail accounts via cryptocurrency. According to the Complainant, the use of a domain name confusingly similar to a registered trademark to attract Internet users to an unrelated commercial operation for financial gain constitutes bad faith use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the P ol ic y. The Complainant points out that the nature of the products being sold (access to third-party platform accounts via cryptocurrency with anonymous contact methods), further suggests an operation designed to evade accountability, is consistent with an overall bad faith posture. The disputed domain name <www-acculynx.com> hosts a 35-page website titled “AccuLynx Login – Best Roofing CRM Software” that prominently displays the ACCULYNX mark and reproduces the Complainant’s genuine support phone number and email address, and directs users to the Complainant’s actual login portal – a use designed to create an impression that the website is operated by the Complainant. B. Respondents The Respondents did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions. In its informal communications to the Center, the Respondent stated Mehmet Ali Sert (omitting its obscene remarks), that the disputed domain name <acclynx.com> is not similar to the Complainant’s ACCULYNX trademark, that it would not give up the disputed domain name, and that the Complainant may pay for it if it wanted to obtain it. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Procedural Issue - Request for Consolidation The Panel notes that the amended Complaint was filed in relation to nominally different domain name registrants. The Complainant alleges that the domain name registrants are the same entity or mere alter egos of each other, or under common control. The Complainant requests the consolidation of the disputes against the multiple disputed domain name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules. The registrants of the disputed domain names did not comment on the Complainant’s request. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. In addressing the Complainant’s request, the Panel has to consider whether (i) the disputed domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.11.2. In support of its consolidation request, the Complainant points out that the domain name <www- acculynx.com> was registered on July 23, 2025, while the domain name <acclynx.com> was registered five days later - on July 28, 2025. According to the Complainant, both domain names target the same ACCULYNX trademark through typosquatting. The Complainant maintains that the terms “www-acculynx” and “acclynx” have no meaning independent of the ACCULYNX trademark, and the selection of both strings, within the same week, by parties with no connection to the Complainant, cannot be coincidental. page 4 The Complainant also notes that both disputed domain names use Cloudflare DNS infrastructure, although the specific name server pairs differ. According to the Complainant, this is consistent with a single operator managing both registrations, potentially under separate accounts or under one account with multiple zones. The Complainant further states that both domain names are being actively used in connection with websites that exploit the ACCULYNX trademark for commercial purposes. The domain name <www-acculynx.com> operates a 35-page website impersonating the Complainant’s official platform and purporting to guide the Complainant’s customers through the software’s login and features, while the disputed domain name <acclynx.com> operates a commercial website selling Google platform accounts (Google Ads accounts, Google Ads Threshold accounts, Google Play developer console access, and Gmail accounts) via cryptocurrenc y. According to the Complainant, both websites employ a similar operational model, using a domain name confusingly similar to the ACCULYNX trademark to attract Internet users and then monetising that traffic commercially, which is allegedly consistent with a single sophisticated actor operating both domain names. The Complainant nevertheless acknowledges that its arguments in support of its consolidation request rest primarily on temporal clustering and shared DNS infrastructure rather than on identical registrar or privacy proxy data. The Panel does not find that the two domain names are more likely than not under common control. Although they were registered within five days of each other, they were registered by different registrants and with different Registrars located in different countries. There is no apparent link between the contact details of the two registrants. The websites to which the two disputed domain names resolve are completely different; they offer unrelated services and appear to use different business models; t hey do not share any common elements and do not include any links referencing each other. Although they both use Cloudflare infrastructure, the specific name servers are different. All this, weighed against the Complainant’s arguments, does not allow a conclusion that it is more likely than not that the two disputed domain names are under common control. In light of the above, the Panel also notes that a separation of the disputes in relation to the two disputed domain names in separate proceedings would allow the consideration of the conduct of each domain name registrant separately and independently of the conclusions made in respect of the conduct of the other domain name registrant. Considering the above, the Panel finds that it is not justified to allow the consolidation of the disputes in relation to the two disputed domain names. Therefore, in exercise of its powers under paragraph 10(e) of the Rules in connection with paragraph 4(f) of the Pol ic y, the Panel: (i) Declines to consolidate the disputes in relation to two disputed domain names; (ii) Decides to continue the proceeding and to issue a decision on the merits only in respect of the disputed domain name <acclynx.com>; and (iii) Decides to deny the Complaint in relation to the domain name <www-acculynx.com>, without going into the merits and without prejudice to the Complainant’s right to refile a separate complaint as to this domain name. The Decision will hereinafter refer to the Respondent Mehmet Ali Sert as the “Respondent”, and the discussion of the three elements of the Policy will only be made in relation to the disputed domain name <acclynx.com>. page 5 6.2. Substantive Issues 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 the ACCULYNX trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds that the ACCULYNX trademark is recognisable within the disputed domain name, as the only difference between them is the absence of the letter “u” in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ACCULYNX trademark for the purposes of the P ol ic y. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. As further discussed in section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.1, a domain name which consists of a variation of a trademark (typically a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling, referred to as typosquatting) is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. This stems from the fact that the domain name contains sufficiently recognisable aspects of the relevant mark. Under the second and third elements, panels will normally find that employing a misspelling in this way signals an intention on the part of the respondent (typically corroborated by infringing website content) to confuse users seeking or expecting the complainant. Here, the disputed domain name appears as a misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark, and the Respondent has not provided any arguments for a different conclusion. The Panel therefore 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. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The disputed domain name appears as an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark, and the Respondent has not provided any explanation why it should not be regarded as such. page 6 The evidence submitted by the Complainant supports its allegation that at the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered for sale various types of Google accounts. The Complainant submits that such activity supports a conclusion of bad faith conduct by the Respondent. The Respondent does not deny that its website was offering for sale Google accounts, does not explain how the use of a misspelled variation of the Complainant’s trademark for this purpose may be legitimate. It is therefore more likely than not that the Respondent has indeed carried out such activity, and the fact that the disputed domain name was inactivated after the filing of the Complaint appears as an attempt by the Respondent to cover this up. Therefore, the circumstances of this case support a conclusion that the Respondent has registered a domain name that is a misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark to use it for unrelated commercial activities. Such conduct cannot give rise to rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name. On this basis, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 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. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The disputed domain name appears as an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s ACCULYNX trademark, and has been used for a website that offered for sale various Google accounts. The circumstances of this case therefore support a finding that by registering and using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the disputed domain name and the associated website, by misleading them as to the affiliation of its website. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules; (i) the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <acclynx.com> be transferred to the Complainant; and (ii) the Complaint is denied without prejudice as regards the domain name <www-acculynx.com>. /Assen Alexiev/ Assen Alexiev Sole Panelist Date: June 2, 2026

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