DECISION
UPKEEPING, LLC v. Andrew Klein / Zccounting LLC
Claim Number: FA2512002192981
PARTIES
Complainant is UPKEEPING, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Jaclyn Ionin of IONIN LAW LLC, New York, USA. Respondent is Andrew Klein / Zccounting LLC ("Respondent"), Washington, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <upkeeping.com> (the Domain Name"), registered with IONOS SE.
PANEL
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 6, 2025. Forum received payment on December 6, 2025.
On December 9, 2025, IONOS SE confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <upkeeping.com> Domain Name is registered with IONOS SE and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. IONOS SE has verified that Respondent is bound by the IONOS SE 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 December 10, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 30, 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@upkeeping.com. Also on December 10, 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.
Having received no formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On December 31, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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
Complainant, UPKEEPING, LLC, is an established leader in the bookkeeping industry. Complainant owns the well-known and valuable trademark UPKEEPING, which it uses throughout the United States in connection with its bookkeeping, payroll, invoicing, accounting and other financial related services for businesses.
The trademark and service mark UPKEEPING is inherently distinctive. Based upon Complainant's wide scale and continuous use of the UPKEEPING name and mark since at least as early as January 27, 2021 and in commerce since March 24, 2021, the mark has unquestionably acquired distinctiveness and is an exceedingly valuable source identifier used and owned exclusively by Complainant.
The Owner and Principal of Complainant, Erin Pohan ("Pohan"), was employed on a part-time non-exclusive basis by ZCCOUNTING, LLC ("Respondent"), beginning on August 19, 2020 through August 27, 2021. Andrew Klein ("Klein") is the Founder, President, and Managing Partner of Respondent and has the authority to represent, sign on behalf of, and bind Respondent. Pohan sought to purchase the <upkeeping.com> domain (the "Domain Name") through domain name marketplace Daaz Limited ("Daaz") on January 27, 2021, at which point she learned that the domain holder was seeking $7,500.00 for it. Due to the high cost, Pohan declined to purchase the Domain Name, and instead registered the similar, but more reasonably priced, "upkeeping.co" domain name on January 27, 2021 with GoDaddy.com.
Pohan formed and registered UPKEEPING, LLC with the state of Washington on March 24, 2021. Because Pohan had communicated with the domain holder of <upkeeping.com> through the Daaz platform, Pohan received an email from Daaz on October 11, 2021, many months after Complainant's first use of its UPKEEPING mark and said mark had gained substantial exposure and notoriety, stating "we have noticed that you have tried to purchase the domain name UPKEEPING.COM. Unfortunately the same domain is purchased by another buyer hence your offer has been cancelled." Pohan reviewed Who.is after receiving the email from Daaz, which, at that time, revealed Respondent as the registrant of the <upkeeping.com> domain. On October 18, 2021, Complainant visited the <upkeeping.com> Domain Name which revealed a copycat website of Complainant's website, complete with stock photos of fake team members.
The Domain Name is identical to Complainant's registered trademark and service mark UPKEEPING. On Respondent's original copycat website, Respondent prominently displayed the <upkeeping.com> domain name. However, Respondent does not have, and never had, a bona fide intent to use the mark, which is clear from its current redirection of the web address using the mark to a page that does not use it at all. Respondent only intends to use the mark to confuse and hijack Complainant's clients and potential clients by redirecting them to its own website, which is not a bona fide intent to use in commerce and also falsely suggests a connection with Complainant and its business.
Respondent, and/or Klein, on behalf of Respondent, further used the <upkeeping.com> domain name to create a Google email account using the email address <erin@upkeeping.com> (the "Fraudulent Email") and using the display name "Erin P." This Fraudulent Email was created with knowledge of Complainant's true email address, <erin@upkeeping.co> ("Complainant's True Email") and with the intent to interfere with Complainant's business and acquire confidential client information through impersonation, confusion and fraud.
Respondent, and/or Klein, on behalf of Respondent, impersonated Pohan and fraudulently represented itself as Complainant by posing as Pohan through use of the Fraudulent Email and communicated with, deceived and preyed on clients of Complainant who mistakenly used the Fraudulent Email due to its near-identical nature to Complainant's True Email and its use of the more common ".com" top level domain, which is the default that most people's minds think of with regard to web addresses. Through its communication with Complainant's client while impersonating Pohan and holding itself out to be Complainant via the Fraudulent Email, Respondent, and/or Klein, on behalf of Respondent, received and accepted confidential payroll information from Complainant's clients. Respondent, and/or Klein, on behalf of Respondent, accepted and even confirmed receipt of the confidential payroll information mistakenly sent by Complainant's clients to the Fraudulent Email, with the knowledge that Respondent was not the intended recipient of the confidential client information.
Respondent fraudulently filed a trademark application with the USPTO for Complainant's UPKEEPING mark on October 13, 2021 with malicious intent and no bona fide intent to use the mark, but rather exclusively for the purposes of tying up the name and precluding the actual bona fide user of the mark, Complainant, (from whom the mark was copied/stolen) from obtaining registration and/or using the mark. This bad faith and lack of bona fide intent is evidenced by Respondent's use of fraudulent dates of first use in its initial filing and the later-filed amendment to an intent-to-use basis.
Complainant filed its trademark application for the UPKEEPING mark based on its senior rights through use of the mark on October 25, 2021. Despite Respondent's best efforts to thwart Complainant's ability to rightfully own its mark, registration was later granted to Complainant. As of Complainant's subsequent review of Who.is on July 10, 2023, Respondent remained the registrant of the <upkeeping.com> Domain Name, and the Who.is record still reflected that the registrant information for the site was last updated on October 12, 2021, however the copycat material had been removed and the Domain Name redirected to Respondent's website, "www.zccounting.com". Although the registration information that had previously been viewable has since been protected by privacy screens, it remains clear that the ownership has not changed, given that the <upkeeping.com> domain still continues to redirect to Respondent's website, as it has since at least as early as January 16, 2023.
Complainant filed an opposition proceeding against Respondent's trademark application with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) on July 10, 2023, which was successful and resulted in Respondent's application being refused registration. Complainant, via counsel, contacted Respondent on July 26, 2024 and February 10, 2025 demanding that Respondent cease all infringing use of Complainant's trademark, including the domain name <upkeeping.com>. Respondent neither agreed to do so, nor took any corrective action in response to the demand letters and failed to respond to the final communication. Respondent has appropriated Complainant's name and mark in order to confuse and hijack Complainant's clients and potential clients by redirecting them to its own website and falsely suggesting a connection with Complainant and its business.
The Domain Name is identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's UPKEEPING name and mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <upkeeping.com> Domain Name. Respondent's use of the Domain Name is clearly intended to confuse the public as to the source of Respondent's services and at the very least suggest a relationship with, approval by or affiliation with Complainant, which Respondent does not have. The sole purpose of Respondent's website is to deceptively route Internet users who mistakenly type in the url UPKEEPING.COM or are otherwise searching for Complainant on the Internet to Respondent's website. Based upon Respondent's prior relationship with Complainant, Respondent's knowledge of Complainant's prior use of the UPKEEPING mark, Respondent's initial use of the Domain Name to host a complete copycat website of Complainant's website, along with Respondent's blatant and successful attempts to fraudulently represent itself as Complainant to Respondent's clients and deceive them into unwittingly providing their confidential information to Respondent as a result of its material misrepresentations, and the fact that Respondent currently uses the Domain Name only to redirect to its "www.zccounting.com" website, Respondent cannot be said to have legitimately chosen the Domain Name for use in connection with its own business services.
Upon information and belief, Respondent has not utilized the Domain Name for any legitimate business purpose, including the creation and maintenance of a website in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor has Respondent ever been commonly known by the Domain Name or the mark UPKEEPING or any close variation thereof. Rather, the only use of the Domain Name that Respondent has made has been in connection with a copycat webpage the sole purpose of which was to confuse and deceive any clients or potential clients looking for Complainant's business and subsequently diverting clients or potential clients to its own website. As such, Respondent's use of the Domain Name is creating consumer confusion as to the source of its services and suggests a sponsorship or approval by Complainant which Respondent does not have. Respondent is clearly using the Domain Name as a source of income in an effort to redirect Internet traffic from Complainant's website to its own website, to the harm of Respondent's [scil Complainant's] business. As such, Respondent's use of the Domain Name does not amount to a legitimate business purpose. Furthermore, Respondent has not made, nor is presently making, any legitimate noncommercial use of the Domain Name for any purpose.
The Domain Name was indisputably registered and is being used in bad faith by Respondent. Respondent's registration of the <upkeeping.com> Domain Name was and is intentional typosquatting of Complainant's <upkeeping.co> domain name, differing only by the Top-Level Domain, using .com instead of .co in bad faith in order to misdirect Internet users and disrupt Complainant's business by frustrating Internet users searching for Complainant on the Internet.
As illustrated above, Respondent had no legitimate interest in the <upkeeping.com> Domain Name and registered it primarily and exclusively for the purpose of disrupting the business of Complainant, its competitor.
Respondent also intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its own website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website or of the services offered on Respondent's website. Respondent's use and registration of the Domain Name is likely to misleadingly divert web users trying to locate Complainant on the Internet, thus tarnishing and disparaging the reputation and goodwill associated with the UPKEEPING name and mark. A user searching the Internet for Complainant could very easily mistakenly type in the Domain Name using the more common ".com" instead of ".co" and thereby inadvertently reach Respondent's website instead. Respondent's actions are clearly in bad faith, as Respondent is attempting to frustrate Internet users trying to conveniently locate Complainant.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding.
Forum received two informal emails from Respondent. One asked procedural questions and asserted that Complainant was previously an employee of Respondent and stole clients from Respondent and "took this brand for herself instead of doing the work she was paid for." The second email offered to sell the domain name "for simply the costs that I incurred when she stole my clients and trade secrets to start her own business."
FINDINGS
Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.
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 formal 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
Complainant has shown that it has rights in the mark UPKEEPING, namely USPTO Registration No. 7,318,735, registered on March 5, 2024 upon application filed on October 25, 2021, claiming first use in commerce on March 24, 2021, for "Bookkeeping; Administration of business payroll for others; Business invoicing services; Consulting and information concerning accounting; Payroll preparation; Payroll processing services; Preparing financial reports for others", in International Class 35.
The Panel finds Respondent's <upkeeping.com> Domain Name to be identical to Complainant's UPKEEPING mark, since the inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).
Complainant has established this element.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The <upkeeping.com> Domain Name was initially registered on January 19, 2005 by an unknown third party. Complainant has shown that in 2021 Pohan offered to buy the Domain Name but that, in November 2021, shortly after she ceased to be employed part time by Respondent, she was told that it had been sold to someone else. Screenshots dated October 19, 2021 show the Domain Name resolved to a website copying much of the content of Complainant's "www.upkeeping.co" website. WHOIS information as at that date shows Respondent's organization, Zccounting LLC, as the registrant of the Domain Name.
These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <upkeeping.com> Domain Name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA 1849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
Complainant has established this element.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is expressed in the conjunctive: "the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith" and Paragraph 4(b) sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), including:
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.
As stated in "UDRP Perspectives on recent jurisprudence, vol.4.30" at paragraph 3.2:
"UDRP Panels routinely determine that a domain name could not have been registered in bad faith when the registration pre-dates a trademark right. It is axiomatic that a Respondent could not have registered a domain name in bad faith before a Complainant acquired rights in the corresponding trademark.
For bad faith registration to have occurred, the trademark must predate the Respondent's domain name registration. There is one limited exception to the general rule, namely where the domain name was registered because of "nascent" trademark rights, such as where the Respondent registered the domain name as a result of the Complainant's announcement of a new corporate name or where the Respondent registered the domain name because of the Complainant's trademark application."
The Panel notes that on October 13, 2021, some six weeks after Pohan ceased her part time employment with Respondent, Respondent applied to register the UPKEEPING mark with the USPTO, claiming first use in commerce at least as early as January 3, 2021. A few days later, on October 25, 2021, Complainant applied to register the UPKEEPING mark with the USPTO, claiming first use in commerce on March 24, 2021, the day on which Complainant Upkeeping LLC was incorporated.
On October 7, 2023, Complainant filed an opposition to Respondent's USPTO application and on November 1, 2023 Respondent applied to amend the application to be an intent-to-use application. Respondent's application to register the UPKEEPING mark was abandoned by consent of the parties on November 10, 2023 and Complainant's application to register the mark was granted on March 5, 2024, with effect from its application date of October 25, 2021.
These circumstances and those set out above in relation to the second element, together with Complainant's assertions, undisputed by Respondent, satisfy the Panel that, although Respondent registered the <upkeeping.com> Domain Name on or around October 19, 2021, prior to Complainant's application to register the UPKEEPING mark, Respondent was then aware of Complainant's <upkeeping.co> domain name and Complainant's use of the UPKEEPING mark since March 24, 2021.
In all the circumstances of this case the Panel finds that Respondent was aware of Complainant's nascent trademark rights when Respondent registered the <upkeeping.com> Domain Name and did so primarily for the purpose of disrupting Complainant's competing business. Further, that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website and of the services promoted on that website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Complainant has established this element.
DECISION
Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <upkeeping.com> Domain Name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: January 2, 2026
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page