UDRP Decision in Claim Number: FA2405002096201


Law School Admission Council, Inc. v. CALLED Inc

Claim Number: FA2405002096201


Complainant is Law School Admission Council, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Wendy K. Marsh of Nyemaster Goode, P.C., Iowa, USA. Respondent is CALLED Inc (“Respondent”), Florida, USA.


The domain name at issue is <> (‘the Domain Name’), registered with, LLC.


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 as Panelist.


Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 3, 2024; Forum received payment on May 3, 2024.

On May 3, 2024,, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <> Domain Name is registered with, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name., LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the, 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 May 6, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 28, 2024 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 Also on May 6, 2024, 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 May 29, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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.


Complainant requests that the Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.


A. Complainant

The Complainant owns the LSAT trade mark registered in the USA for administration of test services for admission to law schools with first use recorded as 1948.

The Domain Name registered in 2019 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark containing it in its entirety and adding only the generic words ‘experts’ and the gTLD .com neither of which prevents said confusing similarity.

The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant.

The Domain Name has been used to point to a log in screen using the Complainant’s trade mark in its masthead which is not a bona fide or legitimate fair use under the Policy. It is registration and use in bad faith confusing and diverting Internet users for commercial gain, impersonating the Complainant and phishing for personal information which is bad faith per se.

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.


 The Complainant owns the LSAT trade mark registered in the USA for administration of test services for admission to law schools with first use recorded as 1948.

The Domain Name registered in 2019 has been used to point to a log in screen using the Complainant’s trade mark in its masthead.


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 3.0 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

The Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s LSAT mark (registered, inter alia in the USA for administration of test services for admission to law schools and used since 1948), the generic term ‘experts’ and the

Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic term to a Complainant’s mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). The Panel agrees that the addition of the generic term ‘experts’ to the Complainant’s mark does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s registered trade mark pursuant to the Policy.

The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the domain name is identical to the complainant’s red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purpose of the Policy to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.

As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4 (a) (i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).

The web site attached to the Domain Name features a log in page with the Complainant’s mark in its masthead. It does not make it clear that there is no connection with the Complainant. The Panel finds this use is deceptive and passing off. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See iFinex Inc. v Yuri Heifetz/Genie-Solution, FA 1789385 (Forum July 9, 2018) (holding that the respondent’s mimicking the complainant in order to cause existing or potential customers of the complainant to believe they are dealing with the complainant is prima facie evidence of the respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). Further phishing for personal information cannot be a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate non commercial fair use. See iFinex Inc. v. Elba Perez / GDI Interest, FA 1779837 (Forum May 8, 2018) (transferring the <> domain name where “Respondent attempts to pass itself off as Complainant to phish for [login] information and fails to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶4(c)(iii).”).

The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant herein.

As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent’s site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe is it connected to or approved by the Complainant as it uses the Complainant’s mark as a masthead for a log in screen.

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site under Policy 4 (b)(iv) and is likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant under Policy 4 (b)(iii). See Allianz of AM. Corp v Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006)(finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website).

Further phishing is evidence of bad faith registration and use within the Policy 4 (a)(iii) See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc v LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA 1625750 (Forum July 17, 2015).

As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under paragraphs 4 (b)(iii) and (iv).


Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: May 29, 2024

Click Here to return to ADR Forum main Domain Decisions Page.