The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited of Dublin, Ireland, represented by DLA Piper US LLP, United States of America ("US").
The Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States of America / Vishal Sharma of Noida, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on April 8, 2016. On April 11, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same date 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 April 19, 2016 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 April 19, 2016.
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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 22, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 12, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on May 13, 2016.
The Center appointed Jonas Gulliksson as the sole panelist in this matter on May 27, 2016. 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 is a company providing management consulting, technology services and outsourcing services. The Complainant has its principal place of business in Dublin, Ireland.
Furthermore, the Complainant, through its predecessor Accenture Global Services GmbH, is the holder of trademark registrations for ACCENTURE in, inter alia, the United States of America and India. On the available record, the oldest of the Complainant's US trademarks (registration number 2,665,373) was registered on December 24, 2002, while the oldest Indian trademarks (registration numbers 967046 and 967047) were registered on October 30, 2000.
The disputed domain name was registered on August 26, 2015. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant began using the ACCENTURE mark for services, including management consulting, technology services and outsourcing services, on January 1, 2001. The Complainant has offices and operations in more than 200 cities in 56 countries. Moreover, the Complainant is the holder of more than 1,000 trademark registrations for ACCENTURE, ACCENTURE & design, 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 trademark has been advertised in connection with various media and has been written about in the press. In fiscal year 2014, the Complainant spent more than USD 70 million on global advertising.
The trademark in question has also been recognized by reputable brand consulting companies. For instance, the ACCENTURE trademark has been recognized in Interbrand's Best Global Brands Reportsince 2002. In 2014, it was ranked 44th in the mentioned report.
Since August 30, 2000, the Complainant holds the registration of the domain name .
The disputed domain name fully and exactly incorporates the Complainant's ACCENTURE trademark, as well as the generic term "consultancy", and is thus confusingly similar to the ACCENTURE trademark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In or around September 2015, the Complainant learned that the Respondent had registered the disputed domain name and created a website wherein it claimed to be "a major technology, engineering, construction, manufacturing and financial services conglomerate, with global operations" operating under the name "Accenture Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd." Upon information and belief, the Respondent has not incorporated any legal entity under that company name.
After the Complainant's sending of two cease and desist letters to the Respondent, the Respondent disabled the website in question. Since then, the Respondent has reactivated the website and deactivated it again. The website is now inaccessible and states: "Forbidden. You don't have permission to access/on this server."
The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the ACCENTURE trademark, or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the mark.
The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Given the Complainant's worldwide reputation, the Respondent was or should have been aware of the ACCENTURE trademark long prior to registering the disputed domain name. It appears as the Respondent did not register the disputed domain name to actually offer services but, instead, registered and is using the disputed domain name for the bad faith purpose of intentionally attempting to attract Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's ACCENTURE trademark. Even if the Respondent intended or intends to offer services under the ACCENTURE trademark, use of a business name that incorporates another's trademark demonstrates that a registrant acted in bad faith in registering a domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove all three of the following elements to be entitled to the relief sought: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) that the 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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the holder of a large number of trademark registrations for ACCENTURE. The disputed domain name consists of the word "accenture" with the addition of the word "consultancy" and the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com". According to the well-established consensus among UDRP panels, the gTLD is generally not distinguishing.
The Panel finds that the Complainant's ACCENTURE trademark is the distinctive part of the disputed domain name, and that the addition of the generic word "consultancy" is not sufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy.
In accordance with the findings above, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark within the meaning of Policy paragraph 4(a)(i), and the first element of the Policy is thus fulfilled. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
In cases when a respondent fails to present a response, the complainant is still required to make at least a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview, 2.0"), paragraph 2.1; The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Lorna Kang,WIPO Case No. D2002-1064; and Berlitz Investment Corp. v. Stefan Tinculescu,WIPO Case No. D2003-0465. Further, paragraph 14(b) of the Rules provides that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, a panel shall draw such inferences as it considers appropriate from a failure of a party to comply with a provision or requirement of the Rules.
The Complainant has asserted that no permission to register the disputed domain name has been granted to the Respondent. Moreover, the Complainant has stated that the Respondent has no rights of its own or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which incorporates the Complainant's trademark.
Having considered the submissions of the Complainant, and in the absence of a response from the Respondent, the Panel infers that the Respondent is not connected with the Complainant or authorized to use the Complainant's trademark in the disputed domain name. Nor does the Panel find any other indications that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, or that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services.
In the light of what is stated above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted this case with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the second element of the Policy is fulfilled. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The disputed domain name was registered on August 26, 2015, which is almost thirteen years after the Complainant's first US trademark registration for ACCENTURE, and almost fifteen years after the Complainant's first Indian trademark registration for the same mark. The fact that the Respondent has chosen a domain name combining the Complainant's trademark with a word describing a sort of services included in the field of business in which the Complainant is active, shows that the Respondent must have had knowledge of the Complainant's prior rights.
Having regarded these facts, and the provided evidence showing the worldwide reputation of the Complainant's trademark, it is in the Panel's view apparent that the disputed domain name was registered with the intention of attracting customers for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's
website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent's website or location. The repeated deactivations and reactivations of the website in question are further indications of bad faith under the circumstances. All in all, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The third element of the Policy is thus fulfilled. 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.
Jonas Gulliksson
Sole Panelist
Date: June 8, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy