DECISION

 

Academy of Collaborative Education v. DUSTIN SALINAS / JUST GOING VIRAL

Claim Number: FA2509002175369

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Academy of Collaborative Education ("Complainant"), represented by Benjamin W. Janke of BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC, Louisiana, USA. Respondent is DUSTIN SALINAS / JUST GOING VIRAL ("Respondent"), Louisiana, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <aceforasd.com>, registered with Bluehost Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Karen J. Bernstein as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 5, 2025; Forum received payment on September 5, 2025.

 

On September 5, 2025, Bluehost Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <aceforasd.com> domain name is registered with Bluehost Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Bluehost Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Bluehost Inc. 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 September 8, 2025, Forum sent a deficiency letter to the Complainant and attached the Registrar's email Verification inviting Complainant to Amend the Complaint to properly identify the Respondent and its contact information.

 

Accordingly, on September 8, 2025, Complainant timely submitted its Amended Complaint to Forum electronically.

 

On September 9, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 29, 2025 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@aceforasd.com. Also on September 9, 2025, 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 September 29, 2025.

 

On September 30, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Karen J. Bernstein 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.       Complainant

Complainant is an innovative, specialty charter school dedicated to ensuring students grades K-6 with Autism Spectrum Disorder have every opportunity to become lifelong learners.

 

Complainant is based in Monroe, Louisiana and is the owner of common law rights to ACADEMY OF COLLABORATIVE EDUCATION, ACEFORASD, and a design mark for ACE and that it has continually used since at least as early as 2024  in connection with providing educational services (collectively, the "ACE Marks").

 

Complainant avers that it has owned the domain name <aceforasd.org>, since 2021 which Complainant uses to host its website, and from 2021 to 2024, Complainant was preparing to use the ACE Marks for its educational services before it opened the school in the Fall of 2024.

 

Complainant states that since the school opened in 2024, the ACE Marks "are well known in the Monroe, Louisiana community such that the ACE Marks have become, through favorable public acceptance and recognition, an asset of significant value to Complainant as a symbol of its goodwill and the quality of its services, which rightfully belongs to Complainant." 

 

Complainant claims that it has used the ACE Marks extensively on its website and its Facebook page that has almost 2,900 followers and hundreds of likes.

 

Complainant claims that its use of the ACE Marks and the <aceforasd.org> domain name it registered in 2021 predates the registration of the disputed domain name, which was registered on October 22, 2023.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ACE Marks but for the only difference being that that the ".com" is swapped for the ".org," a change which does nothing to mitigate confusion between the disputed domain and Complainant's registered domain name and the ACE Marks. 

 

To evidence such confusion, Complainant submitted a demand letter from the Louisiana Behavior Analyst Board ("LBAB") that was sent to Complainant wherein "LBAB mistakenly believed that one of Complainant's faculty member's certification credentials on the 'Infringing Website' were actual representations made by Complainant."

 

Complainant also claims that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent (a) is not using the disputed domain name as a bona fide offering of goods or services; (b) is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or ACE Marks; (c) has no connection or affiliation with Complainant of any kind; and (d) has not ever licensed or consented, express or implied by Complainant, at any time to use the ACE Mark in a domain name or in any other manner.

 

Complainant contends that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its ACE Marks when Respondent registered the disputed domain name and intentionally registered the disputed domain name under a privacy shield to mask its true identity to target Complainant's ACE Marks. 

 

Complainant further alleges that the website located at the disputed domain name displays a 404 error message, copies Complainant's website content, which includes photographs and the names of Complainant's administrators and employees. The "Infringing Website" also falsely displays that the location of the school in California and provides a phone number with an Uzbekistan country code.

 

In addition to copying Complainant's website, Complainant states that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith "to facilitate a nefarious and fraudulent phishing scheme for the purposes of illegally collecting unlawful payments and/or sensitive information from those attempting to visit Complainant's website" since Respondent could use the Donation page on the disputed domain name's website to collect personally-identifiable and credit card information.

 

B.       Respondent

On September 9, 2025, the same day that the Complaint and all Annexes were transmitted to the parties, Respondent Dustin Salinas/Just Going Viral ("Respondent") sent an informal e-mail to Forum, Complainant, and the Registrar of the disputed domain name and stated that he was formally responding to the Complaint.

 

In his September 9, 2025 informal submission, Respondent asked why Complainant did not call him "before all this" or "text me?" He also stated that all he did was try to help," and that he was involved with helping the school and even joined the first school meeting with the faculty.

 

Respondent also contended in his September 9, 2025 submission that he had not accessed "that account" in a long time, and that he "didn't even know he was still paying for it to be hosted." 

 

Respondent's September 9, 2025 submission disclosed that Respondent worked with the school's late founder, Ms. Maddie Cannon, and that Ms. Cannon had "shared access to the domain and could choose when things were or weren't up." He also stated that "without question" he "could have given [Ms. Cannon] access in a moment's notice.

 

Respondents also claimed in his September 9, 2025 email submission that he "spent countless hours helping the school," he has "control of all [of Complainant's] social media accounts, 117 location listings online, and [that Respondent] "believe[s] [Ms. Cannon] (or her email) still has access to Respondent's agency Canva account, which has been linked to all the school's assets from the very beginning."

 

Respondent's email also states that he "pays every month for [Complainant's] phone service, social media campaigns and videos, and education-level Premiere Pro accounts all as an act of donation without asking for any recognition or tax write-off forms." Respondent offered to "provide any proof you need."

 

On September 29, 2025, the date that the formal Response to the Complaint was due, Respondent submitted an additional informal response.

 

In the September 29, 2025 additional informal response, Respondent did not directly respond to each of the elements of the Policy. Instead, he contended that no one prior to the proceeding reached out to Respondent and that if they did, this proceeding could have been avoided had he been contacted.

 

The September 29, 2025 submission reiterated much the same points that were set forth in the September 9, 2025 submission, but added that after receiving the Complaint, Respondent spoke to "individuals still involved at ACE" and "[t]hey confirmed they remembered who [Respondent] was and the truth of [Respondent's] account of events." 

 

Respondent also asserted that he continued to issue work orders to his team to continue maintaining ACE systems, including updates and customization of the AI-driven phone assistant Respondent developed "under Ms. Cannon's instructions."

 

The Response also stated that Respondent "deliberately used domain privacy on the disputed domain name "not to  conceal bad faith, but to avoid being perceived as holding an official position for ACE while residing in Nevada," and that "[i]t is disheartening that [Respondent's] donations and technical support are now being framed as wrongdoing."

 

Respondent also claimed that he "never attempted to sell, profit from, or misrepresent the [disputed] domain, and that "even after [Ms. Cannon's] passing," Respondent "invested resources to keep Complainant's digital systems functional."

 

Respondent requested the disputed domain name transfer be denied, but in the event that the Panel orders a transfer of the disputed domain name, he requested that the Panel state that Respondent's role was in good faith support of Complaint, so Respondent's reputation is not damaged by mischaracterization.

 

Preliminary Issue: Respondent's Communications with Forum

The Panel has broad powers to conduct administrative proceedings that are fair to both parties in the proceeding pursuant to Paragraph 10 of the Rules. Although Respondent's September 9, 2025 and September 29, 2025 submissions do not technically qualify as a formal response to the Complaint, both communications were sent during Respondent's 20- calendar day time to respond to the Complaint.

 

Therefore, in the interest of ensuring that the parties are treated equally and that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case, the Panel will accept Respondent's September 9 and September 25, 2025 submissions and will refer to them together as the "Response."

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has failed to prove the first element of the Policy.

 

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; (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

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy functions primarily as a standing requirement. There are two parts to this requirement. The first part is to determine whether complainant has rights in its trademark, and the second part is whether the domain name is confusingly similar to complainant's trademark.

 

The threshold challenge for the Complainant is that it lacks a registered trademark and does not offer persuasive evidence that its claimed unregistered marks for ACADEMY OF COLLABORATIVE EDUCATION, the ACE design, and ACEFORASD (collectively, the "ACE Marks") have become a distinctive identifiers which consumers associate with the complainant's goods and/or services.

 

In Policy terms, a complainant must offer detailed and specific evidence to demonstrate that an unregistered mark has acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning. Such evidence of unregistered rights in a mark include a range of factors such as: (1) the duration and nature of use of the mark, (ii) the amount of sales under the mark, (iii) the nature and extent of advertising using the mark, (iv) the degree of actual public (e.g., consumer, industry, media) recognition, and (v) consumer surveys. 

 

Conclusory allegations of unregistered or common law rights, even if undisputed in the particular UDRP case, would not normally suffice to show secondary meaning, and the onus is on Complainant to adduce evidence of unregistered rights in a mark that is more substantial than a complainant that owns federal trademark registration rights.

 

Here, Complainant does not own federal trademark registrations for its ACE Marks, so it must establish that it has unregistered trademark rights in the ACE Marks by presenting evidence that consumers identify them as a term exclusively or near exclusively with its products or services and that its unregistered trademark rights have garnered a sufficient level of recognition so that the mark denotes a single source to consumers.

 

Complainant submitted a screenshot of its purported website, which does not display the URL, <aceforasd.com>, or any use of ACEFORASD. Complainant also submitted a screenshot of its Facebook page that displays 2,900 followers and "hundreds of likes."

 

The problem with Complainant's claim of common law or unregistered marks in all of the ACE Marks, is that the disputed domain name is <aceforasd.com>, and so Complainant must prove it has unregistered rights in ACEFORASD to prove standing in these proceedings.

 

In support of Complainant's Facebook page screenshot, which displays 2,900 Facebook followers and hundreds of likes, Complainant cites to Circleback Lending, Inc. v. Andy Tang, FA1603001667870 (Forum Apr. 28, 2016). 

 

In Circleback Lending, Inc., the Panel held that the complainant had proven unregistered trademark rights not just only by providing screenshots of 3,900 likes on its Facebook Page and 1,100 Twitter followers, but by its additional submissions of evidence of more than 200,000 prospects in its email database and expenditures of more than $180,000 on investor conferences, presentations, and other public appearances to promote its services.

 

Complainant's citation to the Circleback Lending, Inc. decision is misplaced. Complainant's screenshot of its Facebook page that shows 2,900 Facebook page followers and hundreds of likes, coupled with no evidence that Complainant even uses ACEFORASD on its Facebook page, does not rise to the level of sufficiently proving secondary meaning in any of Complainant's ACE Marks and especially ACEFORASD.

 

In addition, despite Complainant's statement that its ACE Marks are "well known in the Monroe, Louisiana community to belong to Complainant," it failed to present any evidence of unsolicited media attention to support such an assertion. In other words, Complainant did not submit any evidence of major local or trade publications that featured the ACEFORASD mark for the proposition that the public identifies the ACE Marks for educational services.

 

Nor did Complainant submit any evidence of substantial revenue received or advertising expenditures to support its contention that the ACE Marks have achieved secondary meaning. 

 

Further, while Complainant asserts that the registration of the <aceforasd.org> domain name in 2021 predates the 2023 registration date of the disputed domain name, it does nothing to support Complainant's contention that the ACE Marks have acquired secondary meaning.

 

It is well settled that a complainant who bases its first use of a mark solely on a registration date of a domain name does not confer trademark rights. There is a difference between trademark registration and domain name registration. Trademark registration provides the registered owner a monopoly of a trademark in relation to particular goods and services; whereas, domain name registration does not give any exclusive rights in a good or service.

 

In light of the above analysis, the Panel finds that the Complainant has not demonstrated that any of its ACE Marks, and especially ACEFORASD, have acquired distinctiveness in identifying goods or services associated with the Complainant as Complainant lacks standing in these proceedings. As a result, there is no need to analyze whether the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ACEFORASD mark.

 

Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has failed to establish the first element of the Complaint, and so it unnecessary to consider the second and third elements of the Policy.

 

Reverse Domain Hijacking

Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines "Reverse Domain Name Hijacking" (RDNH) as "using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name." Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules sets forth that if "the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example, in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the registrant of the disputed domain name, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding."

 

The Panel has broad powers to conduct administrative proceedings that are fair to both parties in the proceeding pursuant to Paragraph 10 of the Rules. Although Respondent's September 9, 2025 and September 29, 2025 submissions do not technically qualify as a formal response to the Complaint, both communications were sent during Respondent's 20- calendar day time to respond to the Complaint.

 

When a Complainant brings a domain name dispute despite the fact that it knew or should have known that it did not have a colorable claim under the Policy, a finding of RDNH may be appropriate. See AI, LLC v. dong xuyan, FA2410002120196 (Forum Nov. 6, 2024). UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, § 4.2 (updated Jun. 2, 2025).

 

In this case, Complainant and its counsel argued that the ACE Marks had achieved secondary meaning based on its 2021 registration of its <aceforasd.org> domain name, screenshots of its purported website with no URL displayed, and a Facebook page with less than 3,000 followers and hundreds of likes that does not display any use of ACEFORASD on it.

 

Complainant is represented by sophisticated trademark counsel, and the Panel can only come to the conclusion that Complainant or its counsel must have known that it did not have a colorable claim under the Policy. See Hallmark Licensing, LLC & Hallmark Cards, Inc. v. Privacy Administrator / Anonymize, Inc., FA 1941032 (Forum June 1, 2021).¹

 

The Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.

 

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 <aceforasd.com> domain name remain with Respondent.

 

 

 

 

Karen J. Bernstein Panelist

Dated: October 14, 2025