The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited of Dublin, Ireland, represented by DLA Piper US LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is Yankee, Yankees of bros, Lagos, Nigeria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (“Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 1, 2018. On February 2, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On February 3, 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 February 7, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 27, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 5, 2018.
The Center appointed Flip Jan Claude Petillion as the sole panelist in this matter on March 16, 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 Complainant, Accenture Global Services Limited, is a global management consulting and professional services firm employing more than 425,000 persons and serving clients in more than 120 countries, including Nigeria where the Respondent is residing. The Complainant is a Fortune Global 500 company with a revenue of more than USD 34 billion.
The Complainant is the holder of a multitude of trade- and service mark registrations across various jurisdictions throughout the world for the mark ACCENTURE, which it uses in connection with its business. The Complainant’s trademark portfolio includes, inter alia, the following trade- and service mark registrations:
- , combination mark registered with the Federal Republic of Nigeria Registry of Trademarks under No. 77166 on May 14, 2001 in class 16.
- ACCENTURE, word mark registered with the Federal Republic of Nigeria Registry of Trademarks under No. 79727 on September 24, 2007 in class 42.
- ACCENTURE, word mark registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) under No. 3,091,811 on May 16, 2006 in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42.
- , combination mark registered with the USPTO under No. 3,862,419 on October 19, 2010 in classes 35 and 36.
The Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark has been recognized by various global brand consulting companies as a valuable leading global brand. Various UDRP panels have found that the Complainant and its trademarks are wellknown throughout the world (see Accenture Global Services Limited v. ICS INC. / PrivacyP,WIPO Case No. D2013-2098; Accenture Global Services Limited v. WhoIs Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / ROBERT GREEN,WIPO Case No. D2013-2100; Accenture Global Services Limited v. Accenture Automotives Garage LLC / K.V. Binuraj / NetSonic Computers,WIPO Case No. D2014-1328; Accenture Global Services Limited v. Christophe Eck,WIPO Case No. D2017-0557).
The Disputed Domain Name was registered by the Respondent on January 26, 2018. The Disputed Domain Name appears to have been used in connection with a fraudulent email scheme. The Disputed Domain Name currently does not resolve to an active webpage. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant considers the Disputed Domain Name to be confusingly similar to trademarks and service marks in which it claims to have rights. The Complainant further claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent has not used the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a legitimate use. Also, according to the Complainant, the Respondent has not been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name and is in no way affiliated with the Complainant. Finally, the Complainant claims that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the Respondent knew, or at least should have known, of the existence of the Complainant’s trademark and that this constitutes a clear case of typosquatting. The Complainant further claims that the Respondent has used an email address connected to the Disputed Domain Name in an attempt to obtain payment of fraudulent invoices from vendors of the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 15 of the Rules provides that the Panel is to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
The onus is on the Complainant to make out its case and it is apparent, both from the terms of the Policy and the decisions of past UDRP panels, that the Complainant must show that all three elements set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been established before any order can be made to transfer the Disputed Domain Name. As the UDRP proceedings are expedited and do not have any evidentiary discovery, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
Thus for the Complainant to succeed it must prove, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and on the balance of probabilities that:
i) The disputed 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 disputed domain name; and
iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel will therefore deal with each of these requirements. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must first establish that there is a trademark or service mark in which it has rights. The Complainant has clearly established that there are trademarks and service marks in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark has been registered and used.
The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark in its entirety with the mere addition of the letter “i” between the “t” and the “u”. The addition of a mere letter does not significantly affect the appearance or pronunciation of the Disputed Domain Name. This practice is commonly referred to as “typosquatting” and creates virtually identical and/or confusingly similar marks to the Complainant’s trademark (Mapfre S.A. y Fundación Mapfre v. Josep Sitjar;WIPO Case No. D2011-0692; Compagnie Gervais Danone v. Jose Gregorio Hernandez Quintero,WIPO Case No. D2009-1050).
Accordingly, the Complainant has made out the first of the three elements that it must establish. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of establishing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.
It is well established that it is sufficient for the Complainant to make a prima facie showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name in order to place the burden of production on the Respondent (see Champion Innovations, Ltd. v. Udo Dussling (45FHH),WIPO Case No. D2005-1094; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455; Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o.,WIPO Case No. D2004-0110).
The Panel notes that the Respondent has not been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name and that the Respondent does not seem to have acquired trademark or service mark rights. The Respondent’s use and registration of the Disputed Domain Name was not authorized by the Complainant. There are no indications that a connection between the Complainant and the Respondent existed.
Moreover, the Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. In fact, the Respondent is not making any use of the Disputed Domain Name in connection with an active website. In addition, the Respondent has apparently used an email address connected to the Disputed Domain Name to mislead vendors of the Complainant into paying fraudulent invoices. Evidently, such a use cannot be considered a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name.
The Respondent had the opportunity to demonstrate his rights or legitimate interests but did not do so. In the absence of a Response from the Respondent, the prima facie case established by the Complainant has not been rebutted.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. In light of the above, the Complainant succeeds on the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the Disputed Domain Name was registered in bad faith and that it is being used in bad faith (see, e.g., Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Control Techniques Limited v. Lektronix Ltd,WIPO Case No. D2006-1052).
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exclusive list of factors, any one of which may demonstrate bad faith. Among these factors demonstrating bad faith registration and use is the use of a domain name to intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location.
In the present case, it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant and its trademark rights when it registered the Disputed Domain Name. The Disputed Domain Name includes the Complainant’s distinctive and well-known trademark in its entirety with the addition of a single letter. Moreover, the Complainant provides a copy of an email sent from an address connected to the Disputed Domain Name. The subject line of the email contains the Complainant’s trademark with the correct spelling. This indicates that the Disputed Domain Name was registered for the purpose of “typosquatting”. Considering the distinctive character and the strong reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent must have had knowledge of the Complainant’s rights at the time of registering the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent’s awareness of the Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of registration suggests bad faith. (See Red Bull GmbH v. Credit du Léman SA, Jean-Denis Deletraz,WIPO Case No. D2011-2209; Nintendo of America Inc. v. Marco Beijen, Beijen Consulting, Pokemon Fan Clubs Org., and Pokemon Fans Unite, WIPO Case No. D2001-1070; where POKÉMON was held to be a well-known mark of which the use by someone without any connection or legal relationship with the complainant suggested opportunistic bad faith; BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation v. Serena, Axel,WIPO Case No. D2006-0007, where it was held that the respondent acted in bad faith when registering the disputed domain name, because widespread and long-standing advertising and marketing of goods and services under the trademarks in question, the inclusion of the entire trademark in the domain name, and the similarity of products implied by addition of telecommunications services suffix (“voip”) suggested knowledge of the complainant’s rights in the trademarks).
In the present case, the Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant’s trademark has a strong reputation and is widely known throughout the world, including Nigeria where the Respondent is residing. This makes it difficult to conceive any plausible legitimate future use of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent. Further, the Respondent has apparently used an email address connected to the Disputed Domain Name to mislead vendors of the Complainant into paying fraudulent invoices. The use of an email address associated with the Disputed Domain Name to send deceptive emails to solicit payment of fraudulent invoices by the Complainant’s actual or prospective customers further constitutes bad faith (see section 3.4 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
Finally, the Panel holds that the addition of the letter “i” in the term “accenture” is a form of typosquatting which is further evidence of bad faith (ESPN, Inc. v. XC2,WIPO Case No. D2005-0444; WestJet Airlines Ltd. v. Taranga Services Pty Ltd,WIPO Case No. D2010-1814; and Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Terramonte Corp, Domain Manager,WIPO Case No. D2011-1951).
Therefore, the Panel finds that, on the balance of probabilities, it is sufficiently shown that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. In light of the above, the Complainant also succeeds on the third and last 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.
Flip Jan Claude Petillion
Sole Panelist
Date: March 22, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy