WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Accenture Global Services Limited v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Joshua Kimac Case No. D2018-1641 1. The Parties
Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited of Dublin, Ireland, represented by Mayer Brown LLP, United States of America (“United States”).
Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama, Panama / Joshua Kimac of Walnut Creek, California, United States. 2. The Domain Name(s) and Registrar(s)
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 20, 2018. On July 20, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On July 20, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on July 23, 2018 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 24, 2018.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 25, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 14, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on August 15, 2018.
The Center appointed Christopher S. Gibson as the sole panelist in this matter on August 20, 2018. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background
Complainant is a global professional services company, dating back to 1951, providing a broad range of services and solutions in strategy, consulting, digital, technology and operations. Combining experience and specialized skills across more than 40 industries and all business functions, Accenture works at the intersection of business and technology. Complainant employs approximately 449,000 people serving clients in more than 120 countries.
Complainant began using the mark, ACCENTURE, in connection with various services, including management consulting, technology services and outsourcing services, on January 1, 2001. Since that time, Complainant has used the ACCENTURE mark in connection with various services, including management consulting, technology services and outsourcing services. Additionally, the ACCENTURE mark is registered in many countries around the world. The registrations cover, inter alia, computer consulting services including computer software, design, installation, implementation, maintenance, repair, and technical consultation; educational services including conducting courses and classes in the field of computer software, business, and business operations; computer networks and computer installation, repair, and maintenance; financial services and financial consultation services; business management consulting services including project management and business management, marketing, acquisitions, and mergers; pamphlets, books, newsletters and magazines; and many other goods and services.
A representative chart of Complainant’s trademark registrations in the United States is provided below. Several of these registrations are incontestable and conclusive evidence of Complainant’s exclusive right to use its ACCENTURE marks in the United States in connection with the stated goods and services.
Mark
Good and Services
Reg. No.
Reg. Date
ACCENTURE
Various goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42
3,091,811
May 16, 2006
ACCENTURE
Various goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42
2,665,373
Dec. 24, 2002
ACCENTURE
Various goods in Classes 6, 8, 9,
14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24 and 28
3,340,780
Nov. 20, 2007
ACCENTURE
Various goods in Classes 18, 25
and 28
2,884,125
Sept. 14, 2004
ACCENTURE
& Design
Various services in Classes 35 and 36
3,862,419
Oct. 19, 2010
Complainant also owns registrations for the ACCENTURE mark in more than 140 countries. Complainant owns more than 1,000 registrations for the ACCENTURE marks and many other marks incorporating the ACCENTURE brand for a variety of products and services including, but not limited to, management consulting, technology services and outsourcing services.
The ACCENTURE marks have been advertised in connection with various media including the Internet. Complainant promotes and disseminates information on the Internet and in connection with various media regarding the various offerings under the ACCENTURE trademarks including, but not limited to, management consulting, technology services, outsourcing services and software solutions. Complainant owns and operates its website at “”. Complainant registered this domain name on August 30, 2000, and at this website Internet users can find information about the management consulting, technology services, outsourcing and myriad other services offered by Complainant and its global offices in connection with its ACCENTURE marks.
The ACCENTURE trademarks have been recognized as a leading global brand by reputable brand consulting companies. The ACCENTURE mark has been recognized in Interbrand’s Best Global Brands Report since 2002, when it ranked 53rd. The ACCENTURE mark ranked 37th in the 2017 Interbrand’s Best Global Brands Report. The ACCENTURE trademarks have been recognized by Kantar Millward Brown, a leading market research and brand valuation company, in its annual BrandZ – Top 100 Brand Ranking since 2006 when it was ranked 58th. In 2017, the ACCENTURE brand ranked 32nd. As of 2018, Complainant ranked number 40 as the world’s most admired company, recognized by its name and ACCENTURE trademarks. The search results for the ACCENTURE mark from major Internet search engines such as Google and Yahoo all relate to Complainant.
The Doman Name was registered on July 2, 2018 and resolves to a landing page with links that purport to redirect users to consulting services that would be in competition with Complainant’s services, as well as other links that use the “Accenture” name or refer to career services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
(i) Identical or confusingly similar
Complainant contends that as a result of extensive use and promotion, the ACCENTURE trademarks have become famous, distinctive, and well-known globally. The ACCENTURE trademarks have enjoyed distinctiveness and notoriety for a long period prior to the date when Respondent registered the Domain Name.
Complainant contends that the Domain Name incorporates the ACCENTURE trademarks in their entirety and is identical to the marks in which Complainant has rights. The only difference is the inclusion of the generic or descriptive “llp” suffix, which is an acronym for “limited liability partnership”, and does nothing to change the commercial impression. Complainant asserts it is well established that where the distinctive and prominent element of a disputed domain name is the complainant’s mark and the only deviation is the inclusion of a descriptive or non-descriptive matter, this does not negate the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark. In this case, Complainant argues the addition of “llp” does nothing to reduce the confusing similarity of the Domain Name with the ACCENTURE trademarks, and the Domain Name inevitably confuses users into believing that it was registered by or is affiliated with Complainant.
Complainant accordingly submits that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the ACCENTURE trademarks in which Complainant has rights, satisfying paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
(ii) Rights or legitimate interests
Complainant submits that Respondent has no rights or legi