The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited of Dublin, Ireland, represented by DLA Piper US LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is Monom of Bangalore, Karnataka, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the ‘‘Domain Name’’) is registered with BigRock Solutions Pvt Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 5, 2018. On January 8, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On January 9, 2018, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 11, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 31, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 7, 2018.
The Center appointed Willem J. H. Leppink as the sole panelist in this matter on February 26, 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
The following facts are undisputed.
The Complainant is an international business that provides management consulting, technology services, and outsourcing services under the name ACCENTURE. The Complainant has offices and operations in more than 200 cities in 56 countries.
For the past 14 years, the Complainant has been listed in the Fortune Global 500, which ranks the world’s largest companies.
The Domain Name was registered by the Respondent on September 21, 2016. The Domain Name resolves to a parked page which shows links to third party websites (the “Website”). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Insofar as relevant, the Complainant contends the following.
The Complainant is the owner of more than 1,000 registrations for the word and design mark ACCENTURE, and other trademarks incorporating the ACCENTURE brand, e.g. United States trademark no. 3091811 registered on May 16, 2006 (the “Trademark”).
The Domain Name reproduces the Trademark in its entirety and adds the generic term “career”. Therefore, the Domain Name is highly similar to the Trademark.
The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. The Domain Name resolves to a parked page which shows links to third party websites. Displaying a parked page does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Respondent had constructive notice that the Trademark was a registered trademark in the United States, India, and many other jurisdictions worldwide. Given the worldwide reputation and ubiquitous presence of the Trademark worldwide, the Respondent was or should have been aware of the Trademark prior to registering the Domain Name. Moreover, the Respondent clearly provided false WhoIs information in an attempt to keep its identity hidden, providing evidence of bad faith.
Therefore, the 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
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements:
(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant must demonstrate that it has rights in a trademark or service mark and, if so, the domain name must be shown to be identical or confusingly similar to that mark.
The Complainant has shown that it has rights in the Trademark.
The Domain Name incorporates the Trademark in its entirety and adds the word “career”.
The Panel finds that the dominant part of the Domain Name is “accenture” and that the element “career” may even add to the confusing similarity, since it is likely that Internet users are looking for information related to job and career opportunities at the Complainant.
The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is in this matter irrelevant in the determination of the confusing similarity between the Trademark and the Domain Name, see cases Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,WIPO Case No. D2000-1525; and Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady,WIPO Case No. D2000-0429. See also, Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0903: “[T]he fact that a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered mark is sufficient to establish identity or confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy despite the addition of other words to such marks.”
Thus, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark.
For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel is satisfied that the first element of the Policy is met. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. For that reason, the Panel has carefully considered the factual allegations that have been made by the Complainant and are supported by the submitted evidence.
In particular, the Respondent has failed to offer the Panel any of the types of evidence set forth in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy from which the Panel might have concluded that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, such as:
(i) use or preparation to use the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to notice of the dispute; or
(ii) being commonly known by the Domain Name (as an individual, business or other organization) even if the Respondent has not acquired any trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) making 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.
There is no evidence in the case file that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
The Respondent does not seem to be affiliated with the Complainant in any way. There is no evidence that “Career Accenture” is the Respondent’s name or that the Respondent is commonly known as “Career Accenture”. There is also no evidence that the Respondent is, or has ever been, a licensee of the Complainant or that the Respondent has ever asked, or has ever been permitted in any way by the Complainant to register or use the Complainant’s Trademark, or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the Trademark.
Furthermore, the use of the Domain Name cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services. In particular, the Respondent did not demonstrate any use or demonstrable preparation to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. It is also clear that the Respondent is not making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name.
Finally, given the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names may also be inferred by the fact that no response was filed by the Respondent. According to earlier UDRP panels, “non-response is indicative of a lack of interests inconsistent with an attitude of ownership and a belief in the lawfulness of one’s own rights” (see GA Modefine S.A. and Giorgio Armani S.p.A. v. Yoon-Min Yang,WIPO Case No. D2005-0090; and Pomellato S.p.A. v. Richard Tonetti,WIPO Case No. D2000-0493).
Therefore, based on the evidence, the Panel is satisfied that the second element of the Policy is met. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
In light of the evidence filed by the Complainant and the absence of a reply, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s Trademark and activities are well-known throughout the world.
In the Panel’s view there is no other plausible explanation why the Respondent registered the Domain Name, other than the Respondent being aware of the Complainant and the Trademark.
The Panel finds that the dominant part of the Domain Name is “accenture” and that the element “career” may even add to the confusing similarity, since it is likely that Internet users are looking for information related to job and career opportunities at the Complainant.
Although the lack of a reply by the Respondent as such cannot by itself lead to the conclusion that there is use in bad faith, the cumulative circumstances as outlined in the decision are sufficient for the Panel to find that the use of the Domain Name by the Respondent is in bad faith.
In addition, in the Panel’s view it contributes to a finding of bad faith that the Respondent listed its address in the WhoIs records as “Please dont [sic] try to find me.”
In light of the above circumstances, the Panel is satisfied that the third element of the Policy is met and that the Domain Name was registered and is 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 name, be transferred to the Complainant.
Willem J. H. Leppink
Sole Panelist
Date: March 12, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy