Accel-in.com

The timeline behind accel-in.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.

DECISION Accel Holdings L.L.C. v. Kim Ara Claim Number: FA2407002104891 PARTIES Complainant is Accel Holdings L.L.C. ("Complainant"), represented by Caitlin R. Byczko of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Kim Ara ("Respondent"), Vietnam. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <accel-in.com>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB. 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. Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 3, 2024; Forum received payment on July 3, 2024. On July 4, 2024, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <accel-in.com> domain name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HOSTINGER operations, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB 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 July 5, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 25, 2024 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@accel-in.com. Also on July 5, 2024, 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 July 26, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist. 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 1. Respondent's <accel-in.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ACCEL mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <accel-in.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and uses the <accel-in.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent did not file a Response. FINDINGS Complainant offers financial services and holds a registration for the ACCEL mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (Reg. No. 1,766,176, registered April 20, 1993). Respondent registered the <accel-in.com> domain name on June 11, 2024, and uses it to pass of as Complainant. 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 3.0 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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the ACCEL mark through registration with the USPTO. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Respondent's <accel-in.com> domain name uses Complainant's ACCEL mark and adds "-in" and the ".com" gTLD. These changes do not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exist where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy.) Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <accel-in.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ACCEL mark. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests."). Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <accel-in.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the ACCEL mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Kim Ara". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent's use of the same); see also Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). Complainant also argues that Respondent does not use the <accel-in.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant and purport to offer similar services. Under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), using a disputed domain name to pass off as a Complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant's mark and various photographs related to the complainant's business). Complainant provides screenshots of the disputed domain name's resolving website, where Respondent mimics Complainant's website. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <accel-in.com> domain name in bad faith to divert users to its website where it passes itself off as Complainant. Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), using a disputed domain name to trade on the value of a mark is evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Carey Int'l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Forum July 29, 2005) ("[T]he Panel finds that Respondent is capitalizing on the confusing similarity of its domain names to benefit from the valuable goodwill that Complainant has established in its marks. Consequently, it is found that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). The Panel also finds that Respondent registered the <accel-in.com> domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the ACCEL mark, as Respondent mimics Complainant's website, and finds further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Google Inc. v. Ahmed Humood, FA 1591796 (Forum Jan. 7, 2015) ("This Panel makes that inference; Respondent has actual knowledge of Complainant's mark at the time of domain name registration based on the fame of Complainant's GOOGLE mark and Respondent's use of one of the disputed domain names to detail Internet domain name registration and maintenance services related to and in competition with Complainant.") The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). 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 <accel-in.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist Dated: July 29, 2024 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.