The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited of Chicago, Illinois, United States of America (“USA” or “United States”), represented by DLA Piper US LLP, USA.
The Respondent is Yongkun Wang, W.KING / 王永坤 of Shanghai, China, self-represented. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain names , , , and are registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina; the disputed domain name is registered with HiChina Zhicheng Technology Ltd. (the “Registrars”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 22, 2017. On November 23, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On November 24, 2017, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On November 29, 2017, the Center sent an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Respondent requested that Chinese be the language of the proceeding on November 30, 2017. The Complainant requested that English be the language of the proceeding on the same day. On November 29, 2017, the Center sent a complaint deficiency notification to the Complainant. On November 30, 2017, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint in response to the Center’s deficiency notification.
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 in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on December 6, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 26, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any substantive response. Accordingly, the Center informed the Parties of the commencement of panel appointment process on December 27, 2017.
The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on January 8, 2018. 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 A. Complainant
The Complainant is the owner of numerous registrations in jurisdictions around the world for the trade mark ACCENTURE (the “Trade Mark”), including United States trade mark registration number 3,091,811, with a registration date of May 16, 2006.
The Complainant has been using the Trade Mark internationally since 2001 in connection with a wide range of management consulting, technology and outsourcing services. B. Respondent
The Respondent is apparently an individual resident in China. C. The Disputed Domain Name
The disputed domain names were all registered on the same date, November 11, 2017. D. The Website at the Disputed Domain Name
The disputed domain names have not been used. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names and the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not substantively reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
6.1. Language of the Proceeding
The language of the Registration Agreements for the disputed domain names is Chinese. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11, in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement.
Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules allows the panel to determine the language of the proceeding having regard to all the circumstances. In particular, it is established practice to take paragraphs 10(b) and (c) of the Rules into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding, in order to ensure fairness to the parties and the maintenance of an inexpensive and expeditious avenue for resolving domain name disputes. Language requirements should not lead to undue burdens being placed on the parties and undue delay to the proceeding.
The Complainant has requested that the language of the proceeding be English, for the following reasons:
(i) the disputed domain names fully incorporate the Complainant’s company name;
(ii) two of the disputed domain names incorporate Top-Level Domains (“TLDs”) which are English words (“.ink” and “.fun”);
(iii) the Complainant has submitted a significant amount of evidence in order to demonstrate bad faith. Allowing the dispute to proceed in Chinese would give the Respondent an advantage and would force the Complainant to incur additional costs and expenses in seeking local assistance in China to handle the dispute.
The Respondent has requested that the language of the proceeding be Chinese, but has not provided any reasons for or evidence in support of its language request.
In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the Registration Agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both Parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the Parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs.
The Panel considers the factors relied upon by the Complainant do not support a conclusion that the Respondent is conversant in English. The Panel would also note that the disputed domain names do not fully incorporate the Complainant’s company name (although they do fully incorporate the Trade Mark). Furthermore, the Panel notes that the Complainant’s representative law firm has several offices in China, which would suggest the Complainant might not need to seek local assistance in China to handle the dispute were the language of the proceeding to be Chinese. The Panel also does not accept the Complainant’s submission that allowing the proceeding to proceed in Chinese would give the Respondent an advantage.
The Panel is however mindful of the need to ensure the proceeding is conducted in a timely and cost effective manner.
In all the circumstances, including in particular the fact the disputed domain names are identical to the Trade Mark, the fact the disputed domain names have not been used, the Respondent’s failure to submit any response, and the Respondent’s failure to provide any evidence or grounds in support of its language request, the Panel therefore finds it is not foreseeable that the Respondent would be prejudiced, should English be adopted as the language of the proceeding. The Panel also notes that all of the communications from the Center in this proceeding have been sent to the Parties in both English and Chinese.
Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English.
6.2. Substantive Elements of the Policy
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration.
The disputed domain names each incorporate the entirety of the Trade Mark (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7). Excluding the TLDs “.在线”, “.我爱你”, “.fun”, “.ink” and “.wang”, respectively, the disputed domain names are each identical to the Trade Mark.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names are identical to the Trade Mark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of non-exhaustive circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name:
(i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed 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 disputed domain name even if the respondent has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the respondent is 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 trade mark or service mark at issue.
The Complainant has not authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain names or to use the Trade Mark. The Panel finds on the record that there is therefore a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and the burden is thus on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption.
The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain names or that the disputed domain names have been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the disputed domain names have not been used.
There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names; and there has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Given the notoriety of the Complainant and of its Trade Mark; the fact each of the disputed domain names is identical to the Trade Mark and was registered on the same day; the lack of any explanation from the Respondent; and the passive use of the disputed domain names, the Panel has no hesitation in concluding the requisite element of bad faith registration and use have been made out. The Panel considers it is inconceivable the Respondent was not aware of the Trade Mark at the time it registered the disputed domain names.
For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. 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 names , , , and be transferred to the Complainant.
Sebastian M.W. Hughes
Sole Panelist
Dated: January 22, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy