The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited of Dublin, Ireland, represented by DLA Piper LLP (US), United States of America.
The Respondent is Domain eRegistration of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with OnlineNic, Inc. d/b/a
China-C (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 24, 2018. On August 24, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 28, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing the registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 29, 2018 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 August 30, 2018.
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 September 3, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 23, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 24, 2018.
The Center appointed Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira as the sole panelist in this matter on October 3, 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 is Accenture Global Services Limited, an international business corporation that provides management consulting, technology services and outsourcing services under the trademark ACCENTURE.
The Complainant is the owner of the ACCENTURE trademark and company name, and marks fully incorporating the ACCENTURE trademark (collectively the “ACCENTURE Mark”). The Complainant registered its ACCENTURE trademark in the United States of America on December 24, 2002 (registration No. 2,665,373) and has been using the mark since 2001. The Complainant is one of the world’s leading companies in the field of management consulting, technology services and outsourcing services and owns more than 1,000 trademark registrations worldwide, for ACCENTURE and other marks incorporating the expression ACCENTURE. Proofs of these allegations were presented.
As evidence the documents attached to the Complaint, the Complainant’s mark ACCENTURE was extensively promoted, without limitation, in print advertisements, promotional materials, Internet forums, etc. The ACCENTURE Mark has been recognized as a leading global brand by reputable brand consulting companies, and has also been recognized in Interbrand’s Best Global Brands Report since 2002.
The disputed domain name was registered on August 22, 2018. It currently resolves to an inactive website but previously redirected to the Complainant’s website and according to the Complainant it has been used for sending fraudulent emails impersonating the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant is the owner of the trademark ACCENTURE, which is part of more than 1,000 trademark registrations worldwide. Due to the Complainant’s operations, the trademark ACCENTURE has acquired international recognition and is clearly linked to the Complainant.
The ACCENTURE Mark is associated to the Complainant’s core business. The use of the mark has started more than 16 years ago. The Complainant has been recognized for its business services and brand recognition. For the past 16 years, it has been listed in the Fortune Global 500, which ranks the world’s largest companies. In addition, the Complainant has appeared in various other rankings by Fortune.
Further, as stated by the documents presented, the registration and use of the trademark ACCENTURE predates the registration of the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The disputed domain name redirects to the Complainant’s website, as stated in Annex S to the Complaint. Nevertheless, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent has been contacting people, posing as recruiters and requesting CVs to be sent to an email that relates to the disputed domain name (“[…]@”). Proof of at least one contact was duly presented.
Additionally, the Complainant alleges that the registration and use of the disputed domain name intentionally misleads Internet users, and 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
The Policy, in its paragraph 4(a), determines that three elements must be presented and duly proven by a Complainant to obtain relief. These elements 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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is, indeed, confusingly similar to the ACCENTURE trademark, as the latter is entirely incorporated in the disputed domain name with the addition of the expression “jobs placement”.
The Complainant has presented consistent evidence of ownership of the trademark ACCENTURE in jurisdictions throughout the world, by presenting international registrations for it, as well as comprehensive evidence of the use of the trademark.
The use of the trademark with the addition of the expression “jobs placement” in the disputed domain name does not avoid the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademark.
Given the above, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademark of the Complainant. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
There is clear evidence that the trademark ACCENTURE is registered in the Complainant’s name and is widely known as identifying the Complainant’s activities, and that the Complainant has not licensed this trademark to the Respondent or has not otherwise permitted the use of the disputed domain name. Hence, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In the absence of a Response, the Respondent has not rebutted such prima facie case.
The fact that the Respondent is redirecting the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s website is quite irregular. Besides, evidence of use of the disputed domain name was produced, showing that the Respondent is in fact using it to deceive Internet users via a fraudulent email scheme.
The Panel, thus, finds for the Complainant under the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
In view of the circumstances of this case, the facts evidence the Respondent’s bad faith in the registration and use of the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered to mislead consumers – hence the addition of the expression “jobs placement”. Further, the additional expression can surely be also considered a remittance to the Complainant’s core business, a fact of which typo squatters normally take profit from by giving Internet users the impression that the disputed domain name belongs to the Complainant. The Respondent intended to give an overall impression that the disputed domain name is associated with the Complainant, and the Panel accepts that the disputed domain name may be intended for unlawful purposes.
The Respondent’s redirection of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s website further shows an attempt to mislead consumers into believing that the disputed domain name is associated or affiliated with the Complainant, when it is not.
Finally, proof of at least one case where fraudulent emails were sent to a third party in which the Respondent impersonated the Complainant or recruiters working for the Complainant, is clear evidence of bad faith.
All the points above lead to the conclusion by this Panel that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant when registering the disputed domain name and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has also proved 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.
Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira
Sole Panelist
Date: October 18, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy