The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited of Dublin, Ireland, represented by DLA Piper US LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is Whois Privacy Protection Service by MuuMuuDomain of Fukuoka, Japan / Takeshi Saitou of Tokyo, Japan. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Discount-D and O (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 20, 2016. On June 21, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 22, 2016 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 June 27, 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 June 27, 2016. On June 27, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Parties a request to comment on the language of proceedings, as the Registrar confirmed that Japanese is the language of the Registration Agreement. The Complainant submitted its language request by email on June 27, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any language request.
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 July 6, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 26, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 27, 2016.
The Center appointed Gabriela Paiva Hantke as the sole panelist in this matter on August 3, 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 Accenture Global Services Limited along with its affiliates and predecessor Accenture Global Services GmBh, is an international business that provides management consulting, technology services and outsourcing services under the name ACCENTURE and is the owner of the ACCENTURE trademark.
The Complainant relies upon rights in the ACCENTURE trademark to support its Complaint.
The Complainant began to use its mark ACCENTURE for various services as management consulting, technology services and outsourcing services in the year 2001. The Complainant has offices and operations in more than 200 cities in 56 countries. The Complainant owns registrations for its trademark ACCENTURE in 144 countries of the world, and owns more than 1,000 registrations for the marks incorporating ACCENTURE, including the Unites States where it covers classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42 as well as other classes as 6, 8 and 14. Moreover, the Complainant owns several registrations in Japan since the year 2002 in classes as 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42.
The trademark has been advertised in different newspapers and media throughout the world. The Complainant has relied on the Internet as a forum to promote and disseminate information with respect to the services offered by the Complainant and it is the owner of the domain name from the year 2000.
The Complainant has been recognized by its business services and brand recognition as Fortune Global 500.
The disputed domain name was registered on June 22, 2016 and it resolves to a website purportedly related to a company named “Accenture Development Co. Ltd.”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark ACCENTURE.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Language of the Proceedings
Under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, or specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. In this case, the language of the Registration Agreement is Japanese.
The Complainant requested the language of the proceeding to be English. The Respondent has not submitted any comments in this regard despite having been given the opportunity. The disputed domain name is registered in ASCII characters, using the Roman alphabet. In these circumstances, the Panel has determined English to be the language of the proceedings. 6.2 Substantive Issues A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of the ACCENTURE trademark. The disputed domain name contains the trademark ACCENTURE belonging to the Complainant. The element “1jp” is not enough to avoid confusion with the ACCENTURE trademark. 1 is a number and the abbreviation “jp” corresponds to the geographical designation of Japan, the country where the Respondent appears to be located, so these elements do not add any relevant difference with respect to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Complainant owns around 1,000 registrations for the marks incorporating ACCENTURE in 144 countries of the world including Japan since the year 2002 and has widely promoted the brand in newspapers, magazines and on the Internet.
In view of the above the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark owned by the Complainant. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has established ownership of the ACCENTURE trademark and has established that the trademark is widely used and promoted throughout the world in printed press and on the Internet.
The Complainant has not granted any license or authorization to the Respondent to use the ACCENTURE trademark and the Respondent has no connection with the Complainant and its trademark ACCENTURE.
In the Panel’s view, the allegations made by the Complainant in the Complaint constitute a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Respondent did not file any response and did not seek to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the Complainant has therefore satisfied the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant has provided evidence of the well-known nature of the ACCENTURE trademark, therefore, on balance, the Panel finds that the Respondent was familiar with trademark ACCENTURE when he obtained the registration of the disputed domain name.
The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant´s trademark rights.
In fact, the Panel notes that the website at the disputed domain name directs users to the Respondent’s purported website. A link on the website states “company” and resolves to a page about “Accenture Development Co. Ltd.”, a company which, as explained by the Complainant and not rebutted by the Respondent, does not exist. The Panel finds that such use, in the circumstances of the present case, does not amount to good faith use of the disputed domain name for the purpose of the Policy.
In view of the above, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant satisfied the third element 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.
Gabriela Paiva Hantke
Sole Panelist
Date: August 17, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy