The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited of Dublin, Ireland, represented by DLA Piper LLP (US), United States of America.
The Respondent is WhoIs Privacy Protection Service, Inc. of Kirkland, Washington, United States of America/ ROBERT GREEN of SCOTT, South Africa. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 4, 2013. On December 4, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same day, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 11, 2013 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on December 13, 2013.
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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 17, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 6, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 8, 2014.
The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on January 23, 2014. 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.
In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 11(a), and since the parties have not agreed otherwise, the Panel finds that the language of the administrative proceedings is the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name , i.e. English. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a renowned and commonly known international business that provides management consulting, technology services and outsourcing services. The Complainant has 11 offices in 49 countries throughout the world.
The Complainant is the owner of the trademark ACCENTURE, which is registered globally, including in the United States of America. The ACCENTURE trademark registrations cover a variety of products and services including various forms of business and financial services. According to the provided documents in the case file, the first trademark registration dates back to the year 2000.
Furthermore, the Complainant holds and operates its main website at , which was first registered on August 30, 2000.
According to the Registrar, the registrant of record for the disputed domain name is an individual from South Africa.
The disputed domain name was registered on August 22, 2013 and at the time the Complaint was filed did not resolve to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark as it fully incorporates the Complainant’s firm name and trademark. The Complainant argues that the only difference between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark is that the disputed domain name additionally comprises the geographical indicator “UK”. It is argued that the addition of the term “UK” “merely exacerbates the likelihood of confusion between the [disputed] [d]omain [n]ame and the Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark” as it “describes one of the places where the Complainant’s products and services are sold, as well as the location of several of Complainant’s offices in the United Kingdom”.
Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. In particular, the Complainant states that it has never granted any permission or license to the Respondent to use its ACCENTURE trademark. The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent has never used and does not intend to use the ACCENTURE trademark in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.
Finally, it is argued that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant believes that due to the wide recognition of the ACCENTURE trademark, the Respondent was or should have been aware of the ACCENTURE trademark when registering the disputed domain name. The Complainant believes that using a privacy service to hide the Respondent’s identity is another strong indication of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraphs 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable and on the basis of the Complaint where no Response has been submitted.
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant bears the burden of proving that all these requirements are fulfilled, even if the Respondent has not replied to the Complaint. Stanworth Development Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2007-1228.
However, concerning the uncontested information provided by the Complainant, the Panel may, where relevant, accept the provided reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint as true. Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o.,WIPO Case No. D2004-0110.
It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”) and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the WIPO Overview 2.0. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark.
First, the Panel confirms that the Complainant has satisfied the threshold requirement of having trademark rights regarding ACCENTURE. As evidenced in the Complaint, the Complainant is the owner of a large number of word and figurative trademarks comprising the mark ACCENTURE.
Although not identical, the disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark.
The disputed domain name differs from the ACCENTURE trademark mainly by the addition of the geographical indication “UK”, which is an abbreviation of “United Kingdom”. In the Panel’s view, the addition of a geographical indication like “UK” does not negate the confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that this additional incorporation is purely descriptive and does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark. On the contrary, the full inclusion of the Complainant’s trademark in combination with the geographical indication “UK” enhances the false impression that the disputed domain name is somehow officially related to the Complainant and its products and services offered in the United Kingdom.
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is likely to confuse Internet users into believing that the disputed domain name is affiliated or endorsed by the Complainant or that the use of the disputed domain name is at least authorized by the Complainant.
The Panel notes that the mere addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.com” has no distinguishing effect and may as a general principle not to be considered when assessing identity or confusing similarity between a domain name and a trademark (in line with prior UDRP decisions concerning the use of a gTLD within domain names, cf. V&S Vin & Sprit AB v. Ooar Supplies,WIPO Case No. D2004-0962; Google Inc. v. Nijat Hassanov,WIPO Case No. D2011-1054).
In view of the above, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has met the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel further finds that the Respondent has not demonstrated any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
While the burden of proof remains with the Complainant, the Panel recognizes that this would often result in the impossible task of proving a negative, in particular as the evidence needed to show the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests is primarily within the knowledge of the Respondent. Therefore, the Panel agrees with prior UDRP decisions that the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case before the burden of production of evidence shifts to the Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to meet the requirements in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied this requirement, while the Respondent has failed to file any evidence or convincing argument to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in accordance with the Policy, paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and 4(c).
In its Complaint, the Complainant has provided uncontested prima facie evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in using the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark in the disputed domain name.
In the absence of a Response by the Respondent, there is no indication in the available record that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any of the other nonexclusive circumstances evidencing rights or legitimate interests under the Policy, paragraph 4(c) or any other evidence of a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. In particular, the Respondent has failed to show that the disputed domain name has been or is intended to be used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
In fact, due to the notoriety of the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark, the Panel cannot conceive of any use of the ACCENTURE trademark by the Respondent which would qualify as a legitimate and lawful use.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel is further convinced that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel shares the Complainant’s view that the Respondent is deliberately attempting to create a likelihood of confusion among Internet users and/or to tarnish the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark, likely for commercial gain or some other illegitimate benefit, even though the disputed domain name does not appear to resolve to an active website. The current passive holding of the disputed domain name by the Respondent does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith use (cf. paragraph 3.2 of WIPO Overview 2.0). The Panel believes that the available record provides sufficient evidence to justify an assessment of bad faith registration and use.
First, the Panel believes that the Respondent must have been well aware of the ACCENTURE trademark when it registered the disputed domain name in August 2013. At the date of registration of the disputed domain name, the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark was globally well-known for many years.
Second, the Respondent preferred not to respond to the Complainant’s contentious, although being informed of the pending administrative proceedings by email and parcel service.
Third, the Respondent tried to conceal its true identity by using a privacy service.
Further to the indications mentioned above, the Panel cannot conceive of any good faith use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent. The Panel rather believes that the above demonstrates a typical cybersquatting case, which the UDRP was designed to stop.
The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith and that the Complainant consequently has satisfied the third element of the Policy, namely, paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Kaya Köklü
Sole Panelist
Date: February 3, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy