Www-acculynx.com

The timeline behind www-acculynx.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 Exactlogix, Inc. v. Casey Morgan Case No. D2026-2492 1. The Parties The Complainant is Exactlogix, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by WilliamsMcCarthy LLP, United States. The Respondent is Casey Morgan, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <www-acculynx.com> is registered with Spaceship, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History As noted in the Complaint, the Complainant previously filed a complaint before the Center in relation to the disputed domain name together with another domain name. By decision dated June 2, 2026, in Exactlogix, Inc. v. Mehmet Ali Sert and Casey Morgan, WIPO Case No. D2026-1463, the Panel declined to consolidate the disputes and denied the complaint in relation to the disputed domain name without considering the merits and without prejudice to the Complainant’s right to refile a separate complaint. The relevance of that decision is discussed in section 6 below. The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 8, 2026. On June 9, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 9, 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 (The RDAP server redacted the value, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Casey Morgan) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 10, 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 amended Complaint on June 15, 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”). page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 17, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 7, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 8, 2026. The Center appointed Christiane Féral-Schuhl as the sole panelist in this matter on July 20, 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 company based in the United States doing business as AccuLynx. It is a provider of cloud-based software for roofing contractors, offering a customer relationship management (CRM) and business management platform designed specifically for roofing professionals. The Complainant is the owner of a trademark registration for ACCULYNX (the “ACCULYNX Trademark”), in particular the United States trademark ACCULYNX, No. 3,886,987, registered on December 7, 2010, in classes 9 and 42. Since its founding in 2008, the Complainant has provided its software platform to thousands of roofing contractors. The Complainant also owns the domain name <acculynx.com>, through which it operates its official website. The disputed domain name was registered on July 23, 2025. It resolves to an active, multi-page website displaying the ACCULYNX Trademark and the Complainant’s logo and reproducing the structure of the Complainant’s genuine product pages. 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 confusingly similar to the ACCULYNX Trademark, as it incorporates the ACCULYNX Trademark in its entirety. According to the Complainant, the addition of the prefix “www-” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity but rather increases the likelihood of confusion by mimicking the appearance of the Complainant’s official web address. The Complainant further submits that the ACCULYNX Trademark remains the dominant and recognizable element of the disputed domain name, while the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” should be disregarded for the purpose of the confusing similarity assessment. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has not been licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted to use the ACCULYNX Trademark and that no relationship exists between the Parties. The Complainant also submits that there is no evidence that the Respondent is, or has ever been, commonly known by the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is used for a website impersonating the Complainant, which cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or give rise to rights or legitimate interests. page 3 Finally, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant notes that the disputed domain name was registered more than 16 years after the registration of the ACCULYNX Trademark and submits that the Respondent was necessarily aware of the Complainant and its mark when registering the disputed domain name, as further evidenced by the content of the associated website. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the ACCULYNX Trademark, through a website reproducing the ACCULYNX Trademark, what appears to be the Complainant’s logo, and the overall presentation of the Complainant’s official website. The Complainant also submits that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name poses a particular risk to Internet users, as it hosts what purports to be the Complainant’s login page under a domain name that closely resembles the Complainant’s official domain name. According to the Complainant, such a page could readily be used to collect users' login credentials, thereby exposing the Complainant's customers and their accounts to potential abuse. The Complainant therefore argues that the operation of a deceptive login page under a confusingly similar disputed domain name constitutes a further indication of the Respondent’s bad-faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Procedural Issue - Refiled Complaint The Panel notes that the present Complaint is a refiled complaint following the decision in Exactlogix, Inc. v. Mehmet Ali Sert and Casey Morgan, WIPO Case No. D2026-1463. In the previous proceedings, the Complainant sought the consolidation of disputes concerning the disputed domain name and another domain name. The previous Panel found that the Complainant had failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the two disputed domain names were under common control and therefore declined to consolidate the proceedings. As a result, the Panel denied the Complaint in relation to the current disputed domain name without considering the merits and expressly without prejudice to the Complainant’s right to refile a separate complaint concerning the disputed domain name. The previous Panel neither considered the substantive elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy nor imposed any conditions on the refiling of a separate complaint. The present Complaint addresses the disputed domain name only and contains arguments and supporting evidence directed to each of the three elements required under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. In these circumstances and noting that the previous decision was decided on a “without prejudice” basis, the Panel has decided to accept the refiled Complaint. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.18. 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 a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. page 4 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. Although the addition of other terms here, the prefix “www-” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term 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. Indeed, the disputed domain name incorporates the ACCULYNX Trademark in its entirety, preceded only by the non-distinctive prefix “www-”. The addition of this prefix does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the ACCULYNX Trademark. Furthermore, as is well established, the gTLD (“.com”) is disregarded for the purpose of the confusing similarity analysis. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ACCULYNX Trademark. 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. 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. In particular, there is no evidence that the Respondent has been authorized, licensed or otherwise permitted by the Complainant to use the ACCULYNX Trademark or to register a domain name incorporating it. Nor is there any indication that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or by the name “acculynx”. Furthermore, the disputed domain name does not appear to have been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Rather, it resolves to an active website displaying the ACCULYNX Trademark, what appears to be the Complainant’s logo which cannot confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed impersonation, passing off, or other types of fraud, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. 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. page 5 In the present case, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name wholly incorporates the ACCULYNX Trademark together with the prefix “www-” and was registered more than fourteen years after the registration of the Complainant’s ACCULYNX Trademark. In these circumstances, the Panel considers it more likely than not that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its ACCULYNX Trademark when registering the disputed domain name. The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying the ACCULYNX Trademark, what appears to be the Complainant's logo, and a login page presented as relating to the Complainant’s services. In the Panel’s view, the use of a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark in connection with such a website is intended to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s ACCULYNX Trademark and to attract Internet users for commercial gain within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Moreover, the operation of a login page under a confusingly similar disputed domain name presents a risk that Internet users may be misled into disclosing their credentials, which further reinforces the conclusion that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed impersonation, passing off or other types of fraud, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. In the present case, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been used in connection with a website reproducing the Complainant's trademark, what appears to be the Complainant’s logo, and a login page presented as relating to the Complainant’s services, thereby creating the false impression of being the Complainant’s official website or at least having an association with the Complainant. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 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 <www-acculynx.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Christiane Féral-Schuhl/ Christiane Féral-Schuhl Sole Panelist Date: July 28, 2026

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