The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited of Dublin, Ireland, represented by DLA Piper US LLP, United States of America (“United States” or “US”).
The Respondent is Christophe Eck of Netanya, Israel. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Gandi SAS (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint in English was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 17, 2017. On March 17, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 17, 2017, 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, and noting that the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name was in French. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 22, 2017, to correct an administrative formality.
On March 30, 2017, the Center sent a communication to the Parties in English and French, inviting the Complainant to either submit satisfactory evidence of an agreement between the Complainant and the Respondent to the effect that the proceeding should be in English, or to submit the Complaint translated into French, or to submit a request for English to be the language of the administrative proceeding. The Respondent was also invited to submit comments. On March 30, 2017, the Complainant submitted a request for English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.
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 6, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 26, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 28, 2017.
The Center appointed Marie-Emmanuelle Haas as the sole panelist in this matter on May 17, 2017. 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. Preliminary Procedural Issue: Language of the Proceeding
According to 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, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.”.
In this case, according to the information provided by the concerned registrar, the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is in French.
There is no agreement of the Parties about the language of the proceeding.
Pursuant to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the Panel has the authority to determine that a proceeding may be held in a language that differs from the language of the disputed domain name’s registration agreement.
The Complainant requested to hold the proceeding in English on March 30, 2017, because the Respondent sent an email in English to the Complainant, falsely claiming to be the Complainant’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. The Complainant also explained that the Respondent included both the Complainant’s company name “Accenture”, which is an Irish company, as well as an English word “group” into the disputed domain name. For, all these reasons, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent is clearly familiar with the English language and will not be prejudiced in any way by holding the proceeding in English.
The Respondent did not react on the issue of the language of the proceeding. The Panel notes that the Respondent has been notified of the proceeding in English and French and has not responded to the Complainant or otherwise commented on the language of the proceeding. Translation of the Complaint into French would only delay the proceeding and increase the Complainant’s costs.
Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the Panel decides that English shall be the language of the proceeding. 5. Factual Background
The Complainant is the registered owner of a large number of trademarks dating from as early as 2002 including the sign ACCENTURE, inter alia:
ACCENTURE US trademark No. 3,091,811
ACCENTURE US trademark No. 2,665,373
ACCENTURE US trademark No. 3,340,780
ACCENTURE US trademark No. 2,884,125
ACCENTURE & Design US trademark No. 3,862,419
Pursuant to paragraph 10(a) of the Rules “General Powers of the Panel”, the Panel proceeded to check that the Complainant is the current registered owner of the above trademarks, since the copies of the trademark certificates which were produced as evidence showed that the registrant of these trademarks was the Swiss company Accenture Global Services GmbH.
Indeed, the current owner of these trademarks above is the Complainant.
The Complainant is using its trademarks as domain names to promote its consulting and management activities. The Complainant registered the domain name on August 30, 2000 and this domain name resolves to Complainant’s website.
The disputed domain name was created on March 6, 2017. The registrant of this disputed domain name is Christophe Eck. The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website and has been used to send fraudulent emails. 6. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant explains that it uses its well-known trademarks in commerce in various services including management, consulting, and technology and outsourcing services since the date of their registration.
It relies on previous UDRP decisions that have recognized that the Complainant has rights in the mark ACCENTURE (see Accenture Global Services Limited v. Domains by Proxy, LLC/Name Redacted,WIPO Case No. D2013-2099).
The Complainant further asserts that the ACCENTURE mark is undoubtedly well-known globally and has enjoyed such distinctiveness and notoriety worldwide. It relies on previous UDRP decisions that have found that the ACCENTURE mark is distinctive and well known as a coined mark (see Accenture Global Services Limited v. ICS Inc./PrivacyP,WIPO Case No. D2013-2098).
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ACCENTURE trademark.
Firstly, the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark as well as the generic corporate designation “group”. Secondly, the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.tech” describes the core business activity of the Complainant. These additions do not serve to differentiate the disputed domain name but exacerbate the likelihood of confusion.
The Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name .
The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website and is used in connection with an email address including the name of the Complainant’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer to mislead the Complainant’s senior officers by emailing them. This cannot be considered as a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial use.
No license or authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.
Considering these elements, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name .
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
Given the well-known character of the ACCENTURE mark, the Respondent was or should have been aware of the Complainant’s trademarks long prior to registering the disputed domain name (see Accenture Global Services Limited v. ICS Inc./PrivacyP, supra).
The term ACCENTURE is an invented word that has achieved significant worldwide recognition. Therefore, it is not a term that a domain name registrant would legitimately choose, unless seeking to create an impression of an association with the Complainant (see Banco Bradesco S/A v. Martha Dantas,WIPO Case No. D2010-0646).
The Complainant relies on a prior UDRP decision in a similar case in which it was decided to transfer the disputed domain name: Accenture Global Services Limited v. W Ltd.,WIPO Case No. DCO2015-0036. In that case, the disputed domain name was registered providing false contact information using the name of the Complainant’s own CEO. The panel held that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As noted above, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was used in an attempt to pose as the Complainant’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer in an attempt to obtain money or other personal information from the Complainant’s employees. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 7. Discussion and Findings
To prevail in the proceedings under the Policy, the Complainant must show that the three requirements set forth in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are met. Those requirements are:
(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.
Likewise, the Respondent can demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by demonstrating, among others, the circumstances mentioned under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has clearly established its registered rights in the ACCENTURE trademark.
The disputed domain name is composed of the ACCENTURE trademark to which the term “group” is added.
This term “group” does not differentiate the disputed domain name from the ACCENTURE trademark, nor does the addition of the gTLD “.tech” (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”), paragraph 1.11).
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
As set forth by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, its use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The Respondent did not respond to the Complaint. Consequently it did not provide any evidence or circumstances to establish that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, according to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.
The Respondent did not make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent emailed the Complainant’s senior officers to mislead them, pretending to be the Complainant’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.
The Respondent has not been licensed or authorized to use the ACCENTURE trademark or to register the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out examples of circumstances that will be considered by the Panel to be evidence of bad faith registration and use of a domain name. It provides that:
“For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”
The Complainant has demonstrated the well-known character of ACCENTURE trademark.
The Respondent could not ignore the Complainant’s rights in the ACCENTURE trademark when it registered the disputed domain name .
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith for the purpose of misleading third parties on the origin of emails created using this domain name, i.e., to disrupt the Complainant’s business and possibly harm its reputation. Indeed, the Complainant has submitted convincing evidence that the disputed domain name was used to send emails to the Complainant’s senior officers, pretending to be the Complainant’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.
The Panel finds that using the disputed domain name to create and use an email address in the manner set out above is evidence of a fraudulent email scheme and supports a finding of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name.
Therefore, the condition set out by paragraph 4(a) (iii) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant. 8. 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.
Marie-Emmanuelle Haas
Sole Panelist
Date: May 31, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy