DECISION

 

Law School Admission Council, Inc. v. Stephanie de Pinho

Claim Number: FA2608002238218

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Law School Admission Council, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Wendy K. Marsh of Nyemaster Goode, P.C., Iowa, USA. Respondent is Stephanie de Pinho ("Respondent"), represented by Douglas M Isenberg of The GigaLaw Firm, Georgia, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <lsataccommodations.com> registered with UnstoppableUS2 LLC and <lsataccomodations.com>, registered with UnstoppableUS3 LLC ("Domain Names").

 

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.

 

Dawn Osborne and Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelists and Claire R. Kowarsky as Chair. 

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 7, 2026; Forum received payment on August 7, 2026.

 

On August 11, 2026, UnstoppableUS2 LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <lsataccommodations.com> domain name is registered with UnstoppableUS2 LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. On August 19, 2026, UnstoppableUS3 LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <lsataccomodations.com> domain name is registered with UnstoppableUS3 LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. UnstoppableUS3 LLC and UnstoppableUS2 LLC have verified that Respondent is bound by their respective registration agreements 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 August 25, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 14, 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@lsataccommodations.com and postmaster@lsataccomodations.com. Also on August 25, 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 September 8, 2026.

 

On September 11, 2026, Complainant filed an unsolicited Additional Submission, principally responding to Respondent's fair-use arguments and its request for a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. On September 13, 2026, Respondent filed an unsolicited Additional Submission objecting to consideration of Complainant's submission, but requesting that, should the Panel consider it, Respondent's responsive submission also be considered.

 

On September 15, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne and Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelists and Claire R. Kowarsky 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 Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

Respondent requests that the Complaint be denied and that the Panel make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS

Forum Supplemental Rule 7 provides:

"If a party requests an additional written submission be considered by the Panel, the additional submission must be sent to Forum along with proof of service on the opposing party(s). Forum will forward all additional submissions to the Panel. It is within the discretion of the Panel to accept or consider additional unsolicited submission(s)."

 

Panels have generally been reluctant to permit additional submissions merely to provide a party with a further opportunity to supplement arguments or evidence that could reasonably have been included in its original pleading. See Universal Music Group N.V. and Universal City Studios LLC v. JT U Animation / U Animation, FA 2085375 (Forum May 20, 2024) ("If an additional submission simply reargues the same points, there is no reason to accept it; on the other hand, if the additional submission addresses arguments in the Response that Complainant could not have anticipated or provides information unavailable at the time the Complaint was submitted, the Panel may allow the additional submission.").

 

For the sake of completeness, and in the exercise of its discretion under Forum Supplemental Rule 7, the Panel has reviewed and considered both Additional Submissions but, as discussed further below, does not consider that either submission is of particular assistance. See Simple Plan Inc. v. Wilfredo Gonzalez, FA 1973743 (Forum Jan. 4, 2022) (considering both parties' unsolicited additional submissions but finding that they were not particularly helpful in reaching the Panel's determination).

 

Complainant characterizes its Additional Submission as a reply to, and clarification of, matters raised in Respondent's Response and also opposes Respondent's request for a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. The Panel notes, however, that its first substantive point concerns particular uses of Complainant's LSAT mark on Respondent's website. Complainant does not suggest that these uses arose after the filing of the Complaint, or that the relevant material was otherwise unknown or unavailable to Complainant when the Complaint was prepared. To the contrary, the Additional Submission relies upon Respondent's website and its use of the LSAT mark, matters which Complainant could have addressed in the Complaint. These matters were therefore available to Complainant when the Complaint was filed. The Panel therefore does not consider this material to constitute new evidence or a response to a matter that Complainant could not reasonably have anticipated.

 

The second substantive point raised in Complainant's Additional Submission principally reiterates the arguments already advanced in the Complaint concerning Respondent's alleged bad faith. Complainant additionally relies upon Tonies US, Inc. v. Sarah Miller, FA 2222723 (Forum July 16, 2026). The citation of an additional authority does not, in the circumstances of this case, materially alter the arguments already before the Panel. Moreover, Tonies involved materially different facts. In that case, the disputed domain name resolved to a website purporting to offer the complainant's products for sale while reproducing its trademarks and product images without authorization. The panel found that the respondent's conduct created a false impression of affiliation with the complainant for commercial gain. Those circumstances are distinguishable from the circumstances presented here.

 

Respondent objects to consideration of Complainant's Additional Submission, but requests that, if the Panel considers it, Respondent's responsive Additional Submission also be considered. In the interests of procedural fairness, having reviewed Complainant's Additional Submission, the Panel has likewise reviewed Respondent's response to it.

 

Having considered the parties' respective Additional Submissions, the Panel finds that neither introduces material evidence or argument that alters the Panel's analysis under the Policy, and neither is dispositive of the outcome of this proceeding.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, Law School Admission Council, Inc., is a not-for-profit organization that provides products and services relating to the law school admission process. This includes the Law School Admission Test, or LSAT. Complainant asserts that it has used the LSAT trademark in commerce for law school testing and preparation programs since 1948 and owns numerous United States trademark registrations incorporating LSAT, including registrations for the LSAT mark itself. Complainant offers its test preparation courses and related goods and services through the <lsat.com> domain name and has done so since 2000.

 

Complainant submits that the <lsataccommodations.com> and <lsataccomodations.com> Domain Names are confusingly similar to its LSAT mark because each incorporates the LSAT mark in its entirety and merely adds the descriptive term "accommodations" or the misspelled variation "accomodations," together with the ".com" generic top-level domain. As such, Complainant's LSAT mark is clearly recognizable within the Domain Names.

 

Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Respondent is not authorized or licensed to use Complainant's LSAT mark and is not affiliated with Complainant. Complainant further submits that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names.

 

Complainant argues that Respondent's use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate fair use because Respondent uses the LSAT mark extensively throughout its website in connection with a commercial service. According to Complainant, although Respondent identifies itself "inconspicuously" as "ADTA," because the website repeatedly uses terms such as "LSAT Accommodations," "LSAT Accommodation Evaluation and Documentation" and "LSATaccommodations.com," Internet users are likely to believe that the website is owned by, authorized or affiliated with Complainant. Complainant notes that Respondent includes a disclaimer concerning ownership of the LSAT mark, but argues that the disclaimer appears only in small print at the bottom of the website and does not cure the initial diversion of traffic away from Complainant created by the Domain Names and website.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith pursuant to Policy Paragraphs 4(b)(iii) ("primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor") and 4(b)(iv) ("by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] 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 [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location"). Complainant argues that Respondent was unquestionably aware of Complainant and the LSAT mark when registering the Domain Names and was targeting Complainant when Respondent intentionally selected the Domain Names to attract Internet users seeking Complainant's LSAT-related services for Respondent's commercial benefit. Furthermore, Respondent used a privacy registration service to register Domain Names incorporating Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and is using the Domain Names for a website that Complainant alleges attempts to pass itself off as Complainant or as a licensee thereof. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy

 

B. Respondent

Respondent states that Stephanie de Pinho is a co-founder of American Disabilities Testing Association LLC ("ADTA") and registered and maintains the Domain Names on behalf of ADTA. Accordingly, while Stephanie de Pinho remains the named Respondent as the registrant identified by the Registrar, the Panel notes Respondent's assertion that the Domain Names are held and used on behalf of ADTA.

Respondent provides clients with access to licensed clinicians who evaluate whether an individual's disability-related symptoms and functional limitations support documentation for requested LSAT testing accommodations. Respondent's services may include preparation of documentation relating to requests for extended time, additional breaks or other testing accommodations.

 

Respondent denies that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's LSAT mark merely because they contain the letters "LSAT".

 

More importantly, Respondent submits that it has rights or legitimate interests because it is making a bona fide and nominative fair use of the LSAT mark to describe the subject matter of its legitimate services. Respondent argues that it cannot accurately describe its LSAT-specific accommodation services without referring to the LSAT. Respondent relies upon several previous decisions involving Complainant in which panels found rights or legitimate interests where respondents operated legitimate businesses offering services relating to the LSAT and used the LSAT mark descriptively, including Law School Admission Council, Inc. v. Fischel Bensinger, FA 2054973 (Forum Aug. 31, 2023), Law School Admission Council, Inc. v. Vandalay Media / sean Matthews, FA 2096289 (Forum May 30, 2024), and Law School Admission Council, Inc. v. Nathan Cepelinski / City Jingles, FA 2098803 (Forum June 12, 2024). 

 

Respondent further argues that its website does not impersonate Complainant. Respondent's website prominently displays the ADTA name and logo and uses a visual appearance distinct from Complainant's website. The evidence submitted by Respondent shows the ADTA logo prominently displayed at the top of its website and identifies the services offered as "LSAT Accommodation Evaluation and Documentation by Licensed Psychologists." 

 

Respondent denies bad faith, submitting that it provides legitimate services that are distinct from Complainant's services and that its use of LSAT is necessary to identify the test in relation to which its services are provided.

 

Respondent requests a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, principally on the basis that Complainant is represented by experienced counsel and has previously been unsuccessful in at least four previous UDRP proceedings involving domain names incorporating LSAT that were used for legitimate businesses providing LSAT-related services. 

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, having failed to establish that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names, namely <lsataccommodations.com> and <lsataccomodations.com>, has not established all elements required under the Policy and the Complaint must therefore be denied.

 

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

Complainant has rights in the LSAT mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in a mark under Policy Paragraph 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) ("Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.").

 

Each Domain Name incorporates Complainant's LSAT mark in its entirety and add respectively the descriptive term "accommodations," or the misspelled version "accomodations," together with the ".com" gTLD. The LSAT mark remains clearly recognizable within each Domain Name. The addition of a descriptive term and a gTLD is insufficient to avoid confusing similarity under Policy Paragraph 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable 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.").

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy Paragraph 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel finds that Respondent has established rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names for purposes of Policy Paragraph 4(a)(ii), including through its bona fide offering of services within the meaning of Policy Paragraph 4(c)(i).

 

The record establishes that Respondent operates a genuine commercial business providing evaluation and documentation services to individuals seeking disability-related accommodations in connection with the LSAT. Respondent's use of the LSAT mark identifies the particular examination to which Respondent's services relate. Indeed, it would be difficult for Respondent to accurately describe or advertise its LSAT-specific accommodation services without referring to the LSAT.

 

Previous panels have considered similar circumstances involving Complainant's LSAT mark. See Law School Admission Council, Inc. v. Fischel Bensinger, FA 2054973 (Forum Aug. 31, 2023) ("In the present case Respondent "Fisch" is offering LSAT test preparation services under his own nickname "Fisch".  Complainant asserts that Respondent is providing unauthorized or counterfeit services.  The Panel does not accept that Respondent's services are counterfeit in that they are genuine LSAT preparation services, and to the extent that they are not authorized by Complaint, such authorization is not required for the purposes of establishing nominative fair use."); Law School Admission Council, Inc. v. Vandalay Media / sean Matthews, FA 2096289 (Forum May 30, 2024) ("There is no evidence that that Respondent is seeking to take advantage of any similarity between the Domain Names and LSAT mark beyond that which arises from a truthful use of the LSAT mark to describe the services that Respondent's business provides."); Law School Admission Council, Inc. v. Nathan Cepelinski / City Jingles, FA 2098803 (Forum Jun. 12, 2024) ("The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent is making a bona fide offering of goods and services at the Doman Name. The Respondent is offering independent LSAT test preparation services under the names MASTER LSAT"). Those decisions recognize that the use of LSAT to truthfully identify legitimate independent services relating specifically to the LSAT may constitute a bona fide or nominative fair use.

 

The present case bears similarities to those earlier cases but differs in certain material respects. In particular, Respondent makes more extensive use of the LSAT mark on its website and in its marketing, including referring to its service as "LSATAccommodations.com" in addition to identifying itself as ADTA. Further, while Respondent's website includes a disclaimer regarding its lack of affiliation with Complainant, that disclaimer is less prominent than the references to LSAT appearing elsewhere on the website. These circumstances warrant consideration in determining whether Respondent's use remains a bona fide offering of services giving rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy.

 

Nevertheless, considering the record as a whole, the Panel is not persuaded that these circumstances negate Respondent's rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. Respondent is providing an actual service specifically related to LSAT accommodations; the Domain Names directly describe that service; and Respondent prominently identifies the service provider on the website through the ADTA logo and the name "American Disabilities Testing Association." The Panel agrees with Respondent that, viewed as a whole, the website does not convey the impression that it is operated by, or affiliated with, Complainant. The website has a materially different look and feel from Complainant's website and does not reproduce Complainant's LSAC logo or overall visual presentation. Rather, the evidence demonstrates materially different logos, branding, colour palette and presentation. Respondent also expressly states on its website that "LSATAccommodations.com is a service operated by the American Disabilities Testing Association (ADTA)," an independent organization.

 

The Panel therefore does not accept Complainant's contention that Respondent's use is merely a pretext to impersonate Complainant or to suggest an affiliation with Complainant. Rather, Respondent uses the LSAT mark to identify the examination in relation to which Respondent provides its independent test accommodation evaluation and documentation services. 

 

On balance, the Panel finds that Respondent's use of the Domain Names in connection with its bona fide offering of independent LSAT-related services is sufficient to establish rights or legitimate interests for the purposes of Policy Paragraph 4(a)(ii).

 

Accordingly, Complainant has failed to satisfy Policy Paragraph 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

In light of the Panel's dispositive finding on the issue of rights or legitimate interests under the second prong of the Policy, the Panel declines to address the question of registration and use in bad faith.

 

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

Respondent requests that the Panel make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking ("RDNH").

 

Rule 1 defines RDNH as "using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name." Rule 15(e) provides that, where a complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at RDNH or primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.

 

The Panel declines to make such a finding.

 

Although Complainant has not succeeded in this proceeding, the Panel considers that it had a reasonable basis for bringing the Complaint. The Panel acknowledges Respondent's argument that Complainant, represented by experienced counsel, was aware of several earlier decisions rejecting complaints involving independent providers of LSAT-related services.  On the other hand, Complainant has also succeeded in other UDRP proceedings concerning its LSAT mark. See, e.g., Law School Admission Council, Inc. v. CALLED Inc, FA 2096201 (Forum May 29, 2024). Ultimately, however, each proceeding shall be determined on its own factual matrix.

 

Here, Respondent makes extensive use of Complainant's LSAT mark in connection with its website and marketing, including use of "LSATAccommodations.com" as a service identifier. The Panel considers that these circumstances differ in material respects from those presented in the earlier UDRP proceedings relied upon by Respondent. Complainant therefore had a reasonable basis for seeking a determination under the Policy in respect of Respondent's particular conduct.

 

The fact that Complainant has previously been unsuccessful in proceedings involving different respondents and materially different factual circumstances does not, without more, establish that Complainant knew or should have known that it could not succeed under the Policy, or that the Complaint was otherwise brought in bad faith

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the circumstances in this case do not warrant a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

 

DECISION

Complainant having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <lsataccommodations.com> and <lsataccomodations.com> domain names REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne and Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelists and

Claire R. Kowarsky, Chair

Dated: September 21, 2026