Two companies with similar names are feuding over the right to offer Law School Admission Test preparation courses. Confusing the two could result in students enrolling with a company other than the one they intended. Because grade point average and LSAT scores are the predominant factors for admission into law schools across the country, taking the wrong prep course could affect students’ professional careers.

The story could be called a case of “big dog versus little dog” and the argument between the two companies is all in the name.

TestMasters was founded in 1991 in Los Angeles by Robin Singh. After he attained 12 perfect scores on the LSAT, Singh began tutoring people for the test. His small entrepreneurial venture eventually grew into a national business, making it a “big dog” in the LSAT preparation arena.

Another company, Test Masters, was also founded in 1991, but in Houston. Created by Haku Israni, who held administrative positions at various universities for more than 18 years, the company began with a focus on SAT preparation and engineering certification exams. The company originally catered only to the Texas area, but as its popularity grew, began to spread nationally and offer other tests. Because of its original focus, the company remains a relative “little dog” in LSAT preparation.

Problems have come about not only because the two companies have the same name (only a space between words differentiates the two), but most importantly because of their Web site domain names. The Texas company claimed the domain name testmasters.com before the California company, which subsequently used the domains testmasters180.com and testmasters.net. The two companies have been in litigation ever since for the right to the domain, the name and area in which each can practice.

“We knew it was going to be a problem,” said Sharon Naim, spokeswoman for TestMasters.

Because the two offered services to different clientele – one LSAT, the other SAT and engineering – the California company underestimated the problem. In 2003, the Texas company widened its business scope and began offering LSAT classes.

“We never thought they would offer LSAT,” Naim said.

As a result of similar domain names, a simple mistake in typing Web addresses could cause a student to receive instructions from a company they had not expected.

Naim said the Texas company is taking advantage of the worldwide popularity and high LSAT success rate the California company has established. By using name recognition and a confusing domain-name situation, she said they “dupe” prospective law school students into thinking they are getting the California TestMasters, which has specialized in LSAT for 15 years.

But Israni, Texas Test Masters founder and president emeritus, said tricking students is not the company’s intent, and offering LSAT courses was part of the natural growth of the company. It became widely known for quality SAT preparation, and therefore students who had taken those classes later looked to the company for graduate school preparation as well.

“We didn’t think problems would arise,” Israni said.

But problems did bubble to the surface.

In 2005, 17 New York students filed complaints with the New York State Consumer Protection Board after mistakenly enrolling in the Texas-sponsored LSAT course.

Jon Sorensen, spokesman for the CPB, said both companies have some legal grounds to claim the name, and the purpose of the press release was to “inform consumers that there are two companies – one more popular and one less popular – with the same name.”

Students enrolling in the Texas Test Master course are asked to sign a waiver that states they are aware there are other companies with similar names, to which they are not affiliated. Complainants cite that the language of the waiver perpetuates confusion because it lists the California company’s corporation name, Robin Singh Educational Services, instead of the popular name TestMasters.

Sorensen said the Texas company offered to issue regulated refunds after the CPB brought the students’ issues to their attention. But no more than five students completed the regulations – such as responding by a certain date and signing a conclusion agreement – in order to receive their refunds.

In addition, Sorensen said the Texas company agreed to make the waiver language much clearer.

“We have been telling them loud and clear that we are not the TestMasters of California,” he said.

Complaints have been filed by students at universities across the country, as well as a lawsuit by students in the District of Columbia.

Naim said proof the Texas company is defrauding students include offering fake courses which are canceled at the last minute, untrained instructors, and an overall inferior product. She said a simple change in wording of the waiver does not rectify the problem because “no one’s gonna read the fine text,” and highlights the California company has been specializing in the LSAT for 15 years.

Sorensen said law students should be more careful.

“It’s a lesson for young law students. You’ve gotta do your research,” he said. “You need to go beyond just a cursory Internet check or phone call.”

Israni said his preparation classes compare extremely well. He said some of the LSAT courses offered in new cities do end up canceled, but that his company is still just as good if not better than Test Masters.

“We feel we are able to change peoples lives,” he said.

Robert Solomon, assistant dean of admissions and minority affairs at the Moritz College of Law said taking a preparation course is not the only option for students. He said students can do just as well requesting old test exams and using them for study guides. If students need the structure of a class, they should measure courses by the resources they offer, especially in the materials they provide.

The Texas Test Masters are scheduled to offer LSAT courses for the first time at OSU in June.