Two accounting firms dispute co-surge.com as panel denies UDRP complaint
in plain words
A U.S. firm and an Indian firm both use names close to COSURGE. A panel decided the Indian firm could keep the web address co-surge.com. The panel found no clear proof that the Indian firm knew about the U.S. firm when it registered the name.
Full summary
Cosurge LLC, a U.S. company, filed a complaint under ICANN Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers The nonprofit that coordinates the global DNS and gTLD policy. Full definition of ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy against the domain co-surge.com. The domain is used by CoSurge Consulting Private Limited, an Indian accounting and advisory firm, and its registrant The person or organization that holds a domain name registration. Full definition of registrant, Amit Yadav.
The U.S. company says it began using COSURGE in April 2024 and filed trademark applications that July. The respondent The domain holder against whom a domain dispute is filed. Full definition of respondent registered co-surge.com in April 2025, shortly before incorporating its Indian company under the same name. The complainant The party that files a domain dispute, usually a trademark owner. Full definition of complainant is represented by Bird Loechl McCants & Holliday, LLC, and the respondent by Maheshwari & Co.
The panel The one or three independent experts who decide a domain dispute. Full definition of panel noted that both companies work in accounting-related services and that COSURGE is not a dictionary word. It also said the respondent had advertised a Denver office and North American operations that it later said never materialized. The respondent’s explanations about its U.S. presence had changed and were not supported by a sworn declaration.
Still, the panel found no direct evidence that the respondent knew of the complainant when it registered the domain. It called the case “close” but found it plausible that “co” and “surge” had been combined independently to suggest shared growth. The panel declined a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, saying reasonable minds could differ on the evidence.
The complaint was denied, and co-surge.com remains with the respondent. The panel also accepted the respondent’s late filing of its response, which had its annexes bound into the body rather than submitted separately, finding the defect one of form only.