Billables.com

The timeline behind billables.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Billables Inc. v. Jeremy Ben-Meir / PointOne Claim Number: FA2607002233892 PARTIES Complainant is Billables Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Wendy Larson of Pirkey Barber PLLC, Texas, USA. Respondent is Jeremy Ben-Meir / PointOne ("Respondent"), represented by Douglas M Isenberg of The GigaLaw Firm, Georgia, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <billables.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. 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 and Jeff J. Neuman as Panelists and Nathalie Dreyfus as Chair. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 21, 2026; Forum received payment on July 21, 2026. On July 21, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <billables.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 27, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 21, 2026 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@billables.com. Also on July 27, 2026, 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. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on August 19, 2026. An Additional Submission was received from Complainant on August 26, 2026. The Panel finds it to comply with Supplemental Rule 7 and has considered it. The Additional Submission responds to a characterization of Respondent's use of the disputed domain name first advanced in the Response, and it introduces no evidence that was not already annexed to the Complaint. An Additional Submission was received from Complainant on August 26, 2026. Respondent filed an Additional Submission on August 27, 2026, objecting to Complainant's unsolicited filing and requesting that its own submission be considered only if the Panel considered Complainant's filing. The Panel finds that the submissions comply with Supplemental Rule 7 and, in the interests of procedural fairness, considers both. Complainant's submission responds to Respondent's characterization of its use of the disputed domain name and relies principally on evidence already annexed to the Complaint. Respondent's submission addresses the authorities and arguments raised in Complainant's Additional Submission. Neither submission alters the Panel's determination under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). On August 27, 2026, pursuant to Respondent's request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra Franklin and Jeffrey J. Neuman as Panelists and Nathalie Dreyfus as Chair. 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. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant states that it provides software and related technology services, primarily in the legal field, under the BILLABLES.AI and BILLABLES marks, which the Complaint defines collectively as the "BILLABLES Mark", and that it offers those services through its website at <billables.ai>. It states that it has continuously used the BILLABLES Mark since at least July 2023, that it "has expended substantial resources in developing, marketing, and promoting its services" under the mark, and that "consumers have come to recognize the BILLABLES Mark as identifying Complainant as the source of the services offered under that mark." In support, Complainant relies on three awards, being winner of "Billing Management Solution of the Year" in the LegalTech Breakthrough Awards 2024, finalist in two categories in the 2025 Legalweek Leaders in Tech Law Awards in March 2025, and winner of "Legal Tech Company of the Year 2026", with two further finalist placings, in the Legalweek Leaders in Tech Law Awards announced on March 9, 2026; and on some twenty-five items of directory listing and media coverage published between March 2025 and June 2026, including a March 2025 article on the American Bar Association's Law Technology Today, an ILTACON Startup Hub podcast of July 2025, integration announcements with SurePoint in September 2025, Centerbase in April 2026 and Litify in May 2026, and coverage of a USD 10.2 million Series A financing announced on June 9, 2026. Complainant does not own a trademark registration. It refers to two applications filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), Serial Nos. 99635248 and 99635247, and produces TSDR printouts for them. Complainant further relies on Respondent's own references to it. It submits that Respondent, a direct competitor, "specifically refers to Complainant in association with its use of the domain name at issue", citing the text of the page to which the disputed domain name redirects, and that "Respondent's specific reference confirms the distinctive quality of the BILLABLES Mark to refer uniquely to Complainant." On that basis Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to the BILLABLES Mark, the generic top-level domain being irrelevant; that priority is not in issue, since a change of registrant constitutes a new registration and the historical WHOIS records show that Respondent acquired the disputed domain name between July 2025 and May 2026, years after Complainant began using the mark in 2023; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests, the disputed domain name being redirected to Respondent's own competing website, the domain name itself giving no indication that the destination is a comparison page, and the substitution of ".com" for ".ai" amounting to typosquatting; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith under Paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, Respondent having had actual knowledge of Complainant and having registered the disputed domain name behind a privacy service. B. Respondent Respondent states that it was founded in 2023 and supplies artificial-intelligence timekeeping, bill review, outside counsel guidelines compliance and pricing intelligence software to law firms under the PointOne name. It states that it purchased the disputed domain name from an unrelated third party through a broker at GoDaddy, for USD 30,000, on or about October 5, 2025, and that it also holds other domain names composed of descriptive terms. On the first element, Respondent contends that Complainant has no trademark rights for the purposes of the Policy. A pending application does not establish rights; the two applications relied on have been provisionally refused; and the record does not contain the evidence required to establish acquired distinctiveness in a term that is descriptive, if not generic, of the goods and services concerned. Respondent relies on the dictionary definition of "billable", on articles published by the American Bar Association, on the descriptive use of "billables" by a third-party competitor, and on Complainant's own website copy. Respondent further contends that it has rights or legitimate interests under Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy because it uses the disputed domain name in connection with the descriptive meaning of the term, and that the disputed domain name was neither registered nor used in bad faith. Respondent requests a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. C. Additional Submissions Complainant's Additional Submission is directed to a single point. It contends that Respondent's assertion that it uses the disputed domain name "solely in connection with its descriptive, dictionary meaning" is contradicted by the evidence already before the Panel to the Complaint, and that Respondent's own use of the designation to denote Complainant supports the conclusion that the designation functions as a source identifier. Complainant further submits that the USPTO Office Actions are non-final and do not preclude a finding of common law rights. Respondent's Additional Submission objects to consideration of Complainant's unsolicited filing but, if it is considered, responds principally by distinguishing the three UDRP decisions on which Complainant relies and maintaining that BILLABLES is descriptive or generic and that Complainant has not established common-law rights. FINDINGS The following facts are established on the record and are not, in substance, in dispute. (i) Complainant has since 2023 supplied automated timekeeping and billing software to law firms and other professional services providers, and operates at <billables.ai>. (ii) Complainant owns no trademark registration for BILLABLES, BILLABLES AI or billables.ai in the United States or elsewhere on this record. (iii) Complainant filed USPTO applications Serial Nos. 99635248 (BILLABLES AI) and 99635247 (billables.ai) on February 5, 2026. On June 3, 2026 the examining attorney issued a non-final Office Action in each case refusing registration on the ground that the applied-for mark is merely descriptive of the identified goods and services, and stating in addition that the applied-for mark appears to be generic. (iv) The disputed domain name was created on May 6, 2001 by a third party unconnected with either party. It was publicly offered for sale in May 2024. Respondent acquired it from a third party through a GoDaddy broker on or about October 5, 2025 for USD 30,000. (v) The disputed domain name resolves to Respondent's website at <pointone.com>. (vi) Complainant has produced evidence of recognition of the designation within the legal technology sector. It comprises three awards, conferred in 2024, March 2025 and March 2026; entries in four vendor directories or buyer guides; and some twenty-five items of media coverage and announcement, the earliest bearing a date of March 17, 2025 and the remainder falling between May 2025 and June 2026. A number of these items are, on their face, company announcements or their republication rather than independent editorial coverage. (vii) Complainant has produced no evidence of the volume or value of its sales under the designation, no evidence of its advertising or marketing expenditure, no evidence of the number of its customers or users, and no consumer or trade survey. Beyond its own assertion, it has produced nothing evidencing its use of the designation during 2023, and nothing evidencing the extent of that use in 2024 beyond the award conferred in that year. 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), Complainant must first establish rights in a trademark or service mark. Because the existence of such rights is a threshold requirement, the Panel addresses that issue before determining whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the asserted mark. Complainant relies upon the designations BILLABLES, BILLABLES AI, and BILLABLES.AI. The USPTO applications in the record concern BILLABLES AI and billables.ai, but neither application has matured to registration. A pending trademark application, standing alone, does not establish trademark rights for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Jireh Industries Ltd. v. DVLPMNT MARKETING, INC. / Domain Administrator, FA 1719671 (Forum Apr. 14, 2017) ("Pending trademark applications do not confer rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). The issue is therefore whether Complainant has established common-law rights in the asserted designation. To establish common-law trademark rights, a complainant must demonstrate that the asserted designation has acquired secondary meaning and has become a distinctive identifier associated by the relevant public with the complainant's goods or services. The relevant inquiry under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is whether Complainant had established trademark or service mark rights by the filing of the Complaint. Respondent's October 2025 acquisition date may bear on the bad-faith inquiry, but the Panel need not reach that issue unless Complainant first establishes the requisite rights. Relevant evidence may include the duration and nature of use, sales made under the designation, advertising and promotional expenditures, media and industry recognition, customer recognition, and consumer surveys. The Panel finds that "billables" is descriptive in relation to software designed to capture, record, manage, or bill professional time. The record includes dictionary evidence defining "billable" as something capable of being billed and using "a lawyer's billable hours" as an example. The American Bar Association and third-party market participants likewise use "billables" descriptively. Complainant itself describes its services by reference to the management of "billable hours." The additions of "AI" and ".ai" do not impart sufficient distinctiveness to alter the descriptive character of the designation. Accordingly, Complainant must demonstrate acquired distinctiveness. In this regard, Complainant asserts use dating from at least July 2023. However, the record contains no contemporaneous website archives, invoices, dated marketing materials, letterhead, or comparable documentary evidence establishing use during 2023. The principal website evidence is dated July 16, 2026. Apart from an award received in 2024, the third-party materials principally date from 2025 and 2026. The Panel therefore finds that the evidence concerning the duration and continuity of use is limited. The Panel is of the opinion that evidence of investment received by Complainant does not establish consumer recognition of a designation as a trademark and therefore does not substitute for evidence of sales or market penetration. Complainant further asserts that it has expended substantial resources developing, marketing, and promoting its services. However, the record contains no advertising expenditure figures, campaign data, audience figures, or other evidence allowing the Panel to assess the nature or extent of that promotional activity. Conclusory assertions of substantial promotion, without supporting evidence, are insufficient to establish secondary meaning. Complainant has submitted evidence demonstrating some degree of recognition within the legal-technology sector. The record shows that Complainant received the "Billing Management Solution of the Year" award at the 2024 LegalTech Breakthrough Awards; was a finalist in two categories at the 2025 Legalweek Leaders in Tech Law Awards; and received the "Legal Tech Company of the Year 2026" award, together with two additional finalist placements, in 2026. Complainant is also listed in legal-technology directories and buyer guides and has received coverage in legal-technology publications and industry media. The Panel gives this evidence some weight. However, a substantial portion of the submitted material consists of company announcements or republications of company announcements. Such material is more probative of Complainant's promotional activity than of independent recognition by the purchasing public. More importantly, while the evidence demonstrates some recognition within a specialized professional sector, it does not establish the degree of recognition necessary to demonstrate that the relevant public understands BILLABLES, BILLABLES AI, or BILLABLES.AI primarily as an indicator of source. Complainant further argues that Respondent's express reference to Complainant on the webpage associated with the disputed domain name demonstrates that the asserted mark has distinctive significance. Respondent's comparison page is relevant evidence. It uses "Billables" and "billables.ai" to identify Complainant and therefore tends to show that Respondent understood those designations to refer to a particular competing provider, rather than using the word only in its dictionary sense. That evidence may support Complainant's assertion that the designation had some source-identifying significance in the relevant market. It does not, however, eliminate the need for sufficient evidence that the relevant public, rather than Respondent alone, associated the highly descriptive designation with Complainant as a source of the identified services. On this record, the comparison-page evidence does not fill the gaps in proof concerning the extent and continuity of use, sales, market penetration, promotional expenditure, or consumer recognition. The Panel does not base its determination upon the USPTO Office Actions dated June 3, 2026. The Policy does not require registration, and the Panel is not bound by the preliminary determination of a USPTO examining attorney. The Office Actions are relevant only insofar as they are consistent with the Panel's independent conclusion, based upon the present record, that the asserted designations are descriptive in relation to the relevant goods and services. Whether Complainant may ultimately establish acquired distinctiveness before the USPTO or a court is not before the Panel. The issue in this proceeding is narrower: whether Complainant has established trademark or service mark rights sufficient to satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) on the evidentiary record submitted. The Panel finds that it has not. Accordingly, Complainant has failed to establish rights in a trademark or service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Because Complainant has failed to establish the first element of the Policy, the Panel need not address Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(ii) or 4(a)(iii). Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires a complainant to prove each of the three elements. As Complainant has not proved the first, the Complaint cannot succeed, and it is unnecessary for the Panel to consider Paragraph 4(a)(ii). In accordance with the established practice of panels in such cases, the Panel makes no findings under this element and expresses no view, one way or the other, on the parties' contentions concerning Respondent's use of the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith For the same reason, it is unnecessary for the Panel to consider Paragraph 4(a)(iii), and the Panel makes no findings and expresses no view under this element either. In particular, the denial of the Complaint is not to be read as an endorsement of, or as any conclusion favourable to, the use of the disputed domain name shown in the evidence. REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING Respondent requests a finding under Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding. The Panel declines to make that finding. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking requires more than an unsuccessful complaint. It requires, in substance, that the complainant knew it could not succeed, or clearly ought to have known as much on any fair interpretation of the facts reasonably available to it before filing. See WIPO Overview, section 4.16. That is not this case. Complainant asserted use of the designation since 2023 and submitted evidence of some industry recognition before and after Respondent's acquisition, including awards, directory listings, media references, and evidence that Respondent's comparison page identified "Billables" and "billables.ai" as Complainant's competing offering. Although that proof does not establish the acquired distinctiveness required under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), it provided an objectively arguable basis to bring the Complaint. The Complaint fails for insufficient proof of rights, not because it was brought in bad faith. DECISION Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <billables.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent. Nathalie Dreyfus Chair Sandra J. Franklin Panelist Jeffrey J. Neuman Panelist Dated: September 10, 2026 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.