The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited of Chicago, Illinois, United States of America, represented by DLA Piper US LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is hemingge of Hong Kong, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with T, Inc. (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 the 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 7, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was November 27, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on December 1, 2014.
The Center appointed Andrea Dawson as the sole panelist in this matter on December 11, 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
The Complainant, Accenture Global Services Limited, is an international business that provides management consulting, technology services and outsourcing services worldwide. The Complainant has offices in more than 200 cities and over 56 countries.
The Complainant has obtained numerous awards for its business, products and services provided under the ACCENTURE trademark.
The Complainant sponsors a series of sports events under the trademark ACCENTURE, consequently the mark is encountered by millions of sports fans in these events.
The Complainant is the owner of the trademark ACCENTURE and of the domain name .
The disputed domain name was registered on May 1, 2014 and was used to resolve to a website which appeared to offer similar services as the Complainant. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant states that the dominant part of the disputed domain name comprises the term "accenture", identical to the registered trademark ACCENTURE, registered by the Complainant as a trademark and domain name in numerous countries all over the world. In addition to the trademark ACCENTURE, the disputed domain name also comprises the addition of the letters "lnc" which is confusingly similar to the abbreviation of incorporated "Inc". The Complainant further adds that it is a long-established precedent that confusing similarity is generally recognized when well-known trademarks are paired up with different kinds of generic prefixes and suffixes.
The Complainant indicates that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way nor has it been authorized by the Complainant to use and register its trademark, or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating said trademark. The Complainant further states that the Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The registration of the ACCENTURE trademark preceded the registration of the disputed domain name for years. The Complainant finally contends that the Respondent is not commonly known by the name "Accenture", in any way affiliated with the Complainant, nor authorized or licensed to use the ACCENTURE trademark, or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating said trademark.
The Complainant further states that the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods and services, nor is it making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain, to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademarks of others.
Finally, the Complainant alleges that it is unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the existence of the Complainant's trademark when it registered the disputed domain name. In light of the reputation of the Complainant's ACCENTURE trademark, the Respondent's imitation of the said trademark clearly proves that the Respondent was aware of the existence of the Complainant's trademark, especially since the term "accenture" is a coined word since it has no meaning in any language.
Consequently, in view of the above-mentioned circumstances, it is established that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant requests that the Panel order the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy stipulates that the Complainant must prove the following three elements in order to be successful in its action:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has been able to demonstrate that it has rights to the trademark ACCENTURE (see annex 6 to the Complaint).
The disputed domain name consists of the term "accenture", with the addition of the letters "lnc". As indicated by the Complainant, previous UDRP panels have found that the mere addition of a generic term or a combination of arbitrary letters to a trademark is not sufficient to eliminate the confusing similarity with the mentioned trademark. In this case in particular the additional letters can be easily confused as the term "Inc.", an abbreviation of incorporated, can lead the user to believe that it is the corporate website of the Complainant.
For the above-cited reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark and therefore the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is fulfilled. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
However, many prior UDRP panels have established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name the burden of production shifts to the respondent to demonstrate that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, in the absence of which the panel is entitled to rely on the complainant's prima facie case that the respondent lacks such rights or legitimate interests (see Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455; see also Dow Jones & Company, Inc., (First Complainant) and Dow Jones LP (Second Complainant) v. The Hephzibah Intro-Net Project Limited (Respondent),WIPO Case No. D2000-0704).
The present Panel agrees that the Complainant needs only to make out a prima facie case and finds that it has met that standard. The Panel will consider the arguments of the Complainant that the Respondent did not have any registered trademark or service mark corresponding to the disputed domain name. That the Respondent is not commonly known by the name "Accenture", is in any way affiliated with the Complainant, nor authorized or licensed to use the ACCENTURE trademark, nor authorized to seek registration of any domain name incorporating said trademark. The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, but intentionally misleading consumers to its website for commercial gain.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the second element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out certain circumstances which, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of both registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel considers that the Complainant has submitted evidence, unchallenged by the Respondent, that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with the knowledge of the Complainant's rights in the Complainant's trademarks and that the Respondent's bad faith is evidenced by several circumstances indicating that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant's trademarks at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name.
As mentioned by the Complainant, it is unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name, since the Complainant owns numerous trademarks that are well- known throughout the world. Furthermore the trademark is clearly a coined term which has no meaning whatsoever in any language. Therefore, in the Panel's assessment, it is impossible to conclude that the Respondent did not have this trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
In addition to the above, the Panel accepts the arguments of the Complainant that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith as the Respondent intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website.
The Panel also accepts the arguments of the Complainant when it indicates that there is no reasonable explanation for Respondent's selection of the disputed domain name other than that the Respondent was intentionally attempting to trade off the goodwill of the Complainant.
The Respondent had the chance to respond to the Complainant's letters requesting information regarding the registration and use of the disputed domain name, but the Respondent failed to respond to the letters sent by the Complainant.
For the above-cited reasons, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Consequently, the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy are also fulfilled in this case. 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.
Andrea Dawson
Sole Panelist
Date: December 16, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy