DECISION

 

Accelevation, LLC v. Grade LLC / GradeonLLC

Claim Number: FA2606002225784

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Accelevation, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Neil Peluchette of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, Indianna, USA. Respondent is Grade LLC / GradeonLLC ("Respondent"), Colorado, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <accelevationsllc.com>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB.

 

PANEL

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

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 8, 2026; Forum received payment on June 8, 2026.

 

On June 8, 2026, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <accelevationsllc.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 June 9, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 29, 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@accelevationsllc.com. Also on June 9, 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.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On July 1, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends in part as follows:

 

Complainant's Accelevation, LLC's ACCELEVATION trademarks are registered in the United States in connection with protective barriers in the nature of plastic safety room dividers for office, school, and other work environments for the prevention of the spread of sickness and disease. Complainant is the owner of the ACCELEVATION trademark which dates back to at least as early as April 15, 2020. Complainant has used the ACCELEVATION trademark continuously since that date.

 

Respondent is not associated with Complainant in any way and is not authorized to use the ACCELEVATION trademark or own/control the at-issue domain name. Respondent registered the at-issue domain name on May 28, 2026. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name in a fraudulent phishing scheme, impersonating Complainant's staff for financial gain. Complainant is aware that Respondent gained access to Complainant's email server, infiltrating the email of its employee Hina Shadid (Hina also has access to and sends emails from the "ar@" email address). Once inside Hina's email, Respondent sent an email—from an existing email chain—to Complainant's customer, while replacing two legitimate email addresses for Complainant with email addresses using the at-issue domain name. Respondent then continued the email chain from its newly created email address for Erin Ballard, while then further responding from Hina's legitimate email account—while still having access without Complainant's knowledge—to continue this fraudulent scheme. Complainant has taken the steps to shut down Respondent's access to its system and has worked on further measures to ensure its cybersecurity. Respondent's sole purpose for registration and use of the at-issue domain name is in furtherance of Respondent's fraudulent scheme to target Complainant and Complainant's clients for financial gain. Complainant is aware of instances where Respondent has since sent additional emails to Complainant's customers but has not received those email at this point to attach as additional evidence. Simultaneous to the filing of this Complaint, Complainant has filed takedown notices with the email provider to suspend fraudulent email activity.

 

The at-issue domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The at-issue domain name contains the ACCELEVATION trademark owned by Complainant, with the addition of the letter "s" before "llc." As such, the at-issue domain name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to the ACCELEVATION trademark. Though the registered ACCELEVATION trademark is a design mark, the textual element of the ACCELEVATION trademark is confusingly similar to the domain name and no textual elements of the mark have been disclaimed. The addition of letters fails to distinguish an at-issue domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The addition of descriptive words and/or the gTLD ".com" serves no distinguishing function according to Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

 

Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name that is the subject of the Complaint. Respondent is not authorized by Complainant to use, and has no legitimate rights in the ACCELEVATION mark, the ACCELEVATION trademark, any equivalents of such mark, or the at-issue domain name. Complainant has used secured rights in the ACCELEVATION trademark for at least five years prior to Respondent's unauthorized registration and use of the at-issue domain name. Respondent uses Complainant's ACCELEVATION trademark as part of a fraudulent phishing scheme, where Respondent passes itself off as Complainant for financial gain while impersonating Complainant's staff. Such use by Respondent consists of neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). Use of a domain name to send fraudulent emails, under the guise of Complainant, is not a bona fide offering under the Policy. Respondent has never been associated with Complainant and the fact that Respondent's identity is shielded by a WHOIS privacy service constitutes further evidence Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. The ACCELEVATION trademark is a coined term, registered by Complainant in connection with Complainant's goods and services. Respondent is utilizing Complainant's ACCELEVATION trademark in the at-issue domain name and in connection with a fraudulent phishing scheme where Respondent impersonates Complainant. It is inconceivable that Respondent could make any fair use of ACCELEVATION without creating confusion with Complainant's ACCELEVATION trademark. Respondent cannot claim to be commonly known by an infringing domain name that was recently registered and is being used for fraudulent purposes. This is especially true when Complainant has used the ACCELEVATION trademark for years prior to Respondent's registration of the at-issue domain name. 

 

The domain name should be considered as having been registered and being used in bad faith. The use of an at-issue domain name to impersonate Complainant's employees with the intent to disrupt Complainant's business evidences bad faith registration and use. Respondent's registration and use of the at-issue domain name is in bad faith where Respondent disrupts Complainant's business by passing itself off as Complainant's employee in a fraudulent email scheme for financial gain. Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name in a typosquatting phishing scheme—adding the letter "s" between Complainant's ACCELEVATION trademark and "llc"—is bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Typosquatting is also bad faith per se and shows actual knowledge of the Complainant. Respondent has no legitimate connection with Complainant or its well-known ACCELEVATION trademark. The registration and use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark with which the respondent has no connection has frequently been held to be evidence of opportunistic bad faith. Paragraph 2 of the Policy states "It is your [the domain-name holder's] responsibility to determine whether your domain name registration infringes or violates someone else's rights." Here, Complainant's ACCELEVATION trademark has been in use since at least as early as 2020, years in advance of Respondent's registration of the at-issue domain name. In accordance with the Policy, Respondent had an obligation to ensure the domain name would not infringe the rights of another upon registration. Respondent's failure to do so amounts to bad faith registration. Furthermore, Respondent clearly had actual knowledge of the ACCELEVATION trademark by way of the recent registration of the domain name and using it, fraudulently posing as Complainant while directly targeting Complainant's customers. Respondent does not operate a website in connection with the domain name and instead uses the at-issue domain name for phishing emails. Respondent's registration and use of the at-issue domain name, to passively hold the domain name and engage in fraudulent phishing against Complainant, is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Respondent has engaged in fraudulent activity in relation to its bad faith registration and use of the domain name.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the ACCELEVATION trademark.

 

Complainant acquired such rights prior to Respondent registration of <accelevationsllc.com>.

 

Respondent has no trademark rights in ACCELEVATION and is no way authorized to use Complainant's trademark.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to host email used to impersonate Complainant in furtherance of fraud.

 

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 3.1 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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant shows that it has USPTO registration for the design mark ACCELEVATION. The textual element of such trademark is ACCELEVATION which is compared to Respondent's <accelevationsllc.com> domain name to determine confusingly similarity. See J.J. Kane Associates, Inc. v. Dane Williamson, FA 2185624 (Forum Nov. 22, 2025) ("The Panel finds Respondent's domain name to be confusingly similar to the textual element of Complainant's stylized JK JJ KANE mark, only differing by omitting the first letter "k", which is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark.") Complainant's registration of its ACCELEVATION design mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a trademark authority).

 

Respondent's <accelevationsllc.com> domain name contains a recognizable misspelled/mistyped version of Complainant's trademark where a letter "s" is added to the mark. The "s" is followed by the suggestive term "llc" and the domain name concludes with the ".com" top level which is generally irrelevant to confusingly similar analysis. The differences between the at-issue domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish one from the other for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that the at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ACCELEVATION trademark. See Acme Lift Company, L.L.C. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1607039 (Forum Apr. 11, 2015) (stating: "Where a respondent has created a domain name in an effort to visually deceive Internet users via a simple misspelling (and when such misspellings are visually similar to the mark), a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is appropriate."); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.")

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum Jun. 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the at-issue domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark into any domain name).

 

The WHOIS information for <accelevationsllc.com> supports a finding that the domain name's registrant is "Grade LLC / GradeonLLC" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by <accelevationsllc.com> or any relevant variation thereof. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name)

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to host email to help create the illusion that the domain name and email from such domain originated from Complainant. Respondent's use of <accelevationsllc.com> to facilitate Respondent posing as Complainant via email is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the respondent's use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails purportedly from agents of complainant to be neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).

 

Given the foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <accelevationsllc.com>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith.

 

Respondent capitalized on the confusion it created between the at-issue domain name and Complainant's trademark by using email hosted by <accelevationsllc.com> designed to impersonate Complainant's actual employee to facilitate tricking third parties and customers associated with Complainant into making payments to Respondent's account. Indeed, Respondent's bogus email might be used to support a variety of schemes benefiting Respondent that depend on duping third-parties into falsely believing they are dealing with Complainant. The fact that Respondent engages in identity theft and email fraud using the <accelevationsllc.com> domain name unmistakably demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the <accelevationsllc.com> domain name. See Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that using the at-issue domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).

 

Next, Respondent engages in typosquatting. Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark and then uses the malformed string in a domain name hoping that internet users will accidently type such string when searching for products or services associated with the target trademark and/or as in the instant dispute, that some internet users will misread the misspelled trademark laden domain name and confuse it with the domain name's target trademark. Respondent's intentional misspelling of ACCELEVATION within Respondent's <accelevationsllc.com> domain name is indicative of Respondent's desire to use the domain name to exploit Complainant's trademark. Respondent's typosquatting, in itself, is evidence of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in ACCELEVATION when it registered <accelevationsllc.com> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's ACCELEVATION trademark is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's mark; from Respondent's inclusion of an overt misspelling of Complainant's mark in the domain name; and from Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name to pose as Complainant via email. Respondent's registration and use of <accelevationsllc.com> with knowledge of Complainant's rights in ACCELEVATION further shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use. See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) ("Complainant contends Respondent's appropriation of Complainant's trademark was a clear intent to trade upon Complainant's reputation and goodwill in order to confuse Internet users. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant's mark prior to registration and this constitutes bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).

 

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 <accelevationsllc.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: July 1, 2026