Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited of Dublin, Ireland, represented by DLA Piper US LLP, United States of America.
Respondent is Sakshi Singh of Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on October 28, 2014. On October 29, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 30, 2014, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 6, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was November 26, 2014. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent's default on November 28, 2014.
The Center appointed Stephanie G. Hartung as the sole panelist in this matter on December 9, 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. 4. Factual Background
Complainant is an international management consulting, technology services and outsourcing services company under the name of "Accenture" with legal domicile in Ireland.
Complainant has submitted evidence according to which Complainant, together with the Accenture group of companies, is the owner of numerous trademarks worldwide relating to the designation "Accenture", including the following:
- Word Mark ACCENTURE, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Registration No. 3,091,811, Registration Date: May 16, 2006;
- Word/Device Mark ACCENTURE, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Registration No. 3,340,780, Registration Date: November 20, 2007;
- Word Mark ACCENTURE, Government of India Trademarks Registry, Registration No. 967047, Registration Date: October 30, 2000;
- Word/Device Mark ACCENTURE, Government of India Trademarks Registry, Registration No. 1008459, Registration Date: May 10, 2001.
Moreover, Complainant has evidenced to be the owner of the domain name , registered on August 30, 2000.
The disputed domain name was registered on June 21, 2014.
Complainant has submitted evidence that, by the time of filing this Complaint, the disputed domain name redirected to Respondent's website at "" where Respondent claimed to be an "ISO 9001/2000 certified pharmaceutical consulting company". However, by the time of rendering this decision, the disputed domain name could no longer be reached on the Internet.
Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant contends to have operations in 200 cities in 56 countries. Complainant asserts that it has extensively used and continues to use the ACCENTURE trademark since January 1, 2001 and meanwhile owns more than 1,000 registrations protecting such trademark in 152 countries for a variety of products and services. Complainant claims that the ACCENTURE mark has been heavily advertised by Complainant in connection with various media and has been written about it in the press. Complainant has submitted evidence that the ACCENTURE mark has been recognized as a leading global brand by reputable brand consulting companies in the industry and ranked e.g. 41st in the Inter Brand's 2013 Best Global Brands Report. As a result of such extensive use and promotion, Complainant asserts that the ACCENTURE trademark has meanwhile become distinctive and well-known globally and has enjoyed such distinctiveness and notoriety since long prior to the date on which Respondent registered the disputed domain name, also with respect to India, which apparently is Respondent's home country.
Complainant suggests that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ACCENTURE trademark as the disputed domain name incorporates a term that is only one letter different from the ACCENTURE trademark and is still phonetically identical thereto.
Complainant further claims that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since (1) Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the ACCENTURE trademark, (2) on the contrary, Respondent has represented itself in India as associated or affiliated with Complainant, which it is not, and, therefore, Respondent has been investigated by the police which is why Respondent meanwhile closed its business and vacated its office, (3) the term "Accenture" is an invented word that has achieved significant worldwide recognition and, as such, is not a term that a domain name registrant would legitimately choose unless seeking to create an impression of an association with Complainant.
Finally, Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith by Respondent since (1) given Complainant's worldwide reputation and the ubiquitous presence of the ACCENTURE trademark, Respondent was or should have been aware of the ACCENTURE trademark long prior to registering the disputed domain name; (2) Respondent adopted the name "Business Acenture Solution" and incorporated this name into the disputed domain name in an attempt to appear associated or affiliated with Complainant. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, Complainant carries the burden of proving:
(i) That the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) That the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Respondent's default in the case at hand does not automatically result in a decision in favor of Complainant. However, paragraph 5(e) of the Rules provides that if Respondent does not submit a Response, in the absence of special circumstances, the Panel is to decide the dispute solely based upon the Complaint. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ACCENTURE trademark in which Complainant has shown to have rights.
The disputed domain name incorporates the ACCENTURE trademark in its entirety, except the typo-misspelling arising from the omission of one of the letters "c" ("Acenture" instead of "Accenture"). Numerous UDRP panels have recognized that incorporating a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that the domain name is at least confusingly similar to a registered trademark (see e.g. PepsiCo, Inc. v. PEPSI, SRL (a/k/a P.E.P.S.I. and EMS Computer Industry (a/k/a EMS), WIPO Case No. D2003-0696). The fact that the disputed domain name obviously includes a simple misspelling of Complainant's ACCENTURE trademark varying by just one letter omission is not at all in contrast to such finding of a confusing similarity. Typo-squatted domain names are in fact intended to be confusing so that Internet users, who unwillingly make common type errors, will enter the typo-squatted domain name instead of the correctly spelt trademark (see also: Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. v. Ni Hao/Two Stooges LLC,WIPO Case No. D2011-1640; National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues, Inc, d/b/a Minor League Baseball v. John Zuccarini, WIPO Case No. D2002-1011). Moreover, it has been held in numerous UDRP decisions and has meanwhile become a consensus view among panelists (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0"), paragraph 1.9) that the addition of a generic or descriptive term or geographical wording to a trademark in a domain name is normally insufficient in itself to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP. Accordingly, the mere addition of the generic and descriptive terms "business" as well as "solution" is not at all capable to dispel the confusing similarity arising from the incorporation of Complainant's ACCENTURE trademark in the disputed domain name.
Therefore, the first element under the Policy set for by paragraph 4(a)(i) in the case at hand is fulfilled. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel is further convinced that on the basis of Complainant's undisputed contentions, Respondent apparently has neither made use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor has Respondent been commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor can it be found that Respondent makes a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use thereof without intent for commercial gain.
Complainant has set up a coherent and traceable case scenario according to which Respondent had undertaken business activities on the Indian market pretending to be associated or affiliated with Complainant which he obviously is not. By the time of rendering this decision, the disputed domain name – which formerly apparently redirected to Respondent's website at "" where Respondent claimed to be an "ISO 9001/2000 certified pharmaceutical consulting company" – can no longer be reached because it seems to have been suspended.
Accordingly, Complainant has established a strong prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Now, the burden of production shifts to Respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating to the contrary (see WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 2.1). In the case at hand, Respondent did not reply to Complainant's allegations as they were included in the Complaint duly notified to Respondent by the Center on November 6, 2014, nor did he come forward with any other reasonable explanation that might have thrown a different light on Respondent's possible rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has also satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) and thus the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finally holds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
On the basis of Complainant's undisputed contentions supported by reliable evidence, the Panel has no difficulty into believing that Respondent knew or at least should have known about Complainant's ACCENTURE trademark by the time of registering the disputed domain name. From the evidence before the Panel it is reasonable to believe that Respondent had set up a business model in India on the basis of the pretention that Respondent was affiliated or somehow associated with Complainant which obviously is not the case. Respondent, in turn, has brought nothing forward nor are there any indications in the case at hand as to how the disputed domain name could be used by Respondent in a legitimate way. Against this background, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith, even if the disputed domain name by the time of rendering this decision does not anymore redirect to Respondent's former website, since the examination of the circumstances of the case at hand are still indicative of Respondent's acting in bad faith. In this context, the Panel has also taken into account that (1) Respondent obviously provided false WhoIs information since the delivery of the written notice of the Complaint sent to Respondent via courier on November 6, 2014 failed because of insufficient address information plus that a written notice fax did not go through because of an incorrect facsimile number and (2) Respondent kept silent on all of Complainant's contentions as they were included in the Complaint. These facts taken altogether throw a light on Respondent's behavior which at least supports the finding of a registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Therefore, the Panel finds that also the third element under the Policy set forth by paragraph 4(a)(iii) is fulfilled and that, accordingly, Complainant has satisfied all of the three requirements of paragraph 4(a) 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 Complainant.
Stephanie G. Hartung, LL.M.
Sole Panelist
Date: December 16, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy