Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited of Chicago, Illinois, United States of America (“United States”) (hereinafter referred to as “Complainant”), represented by DLA Piper US LLP, United States.
Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0151953176 of Toronto, Canada / Heather Pottter, Wood of Stockton, California, United States (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 18, 2018. On September 19, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 20, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on September 26, 2018 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on September 26, 2018.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint (hereinafter “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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 9, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 29, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on October 30, 2018.
The Center appointed M. Scott Donahey as the sole panelist in this matter on November 7, 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
Complainant is engaged in providing management consulting, technology services, and outsourcing services on an international basis. Complainant has offices and operations in more than 200 cities in 56 different countries.
Complainant began using the business name and mark ACCENTURE in connection with its services on January 1, 2001. It has numerous marks registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), the earliest of which issued on December 24, 2002. Complaint, Annex D.
Complainant has used its mark continuously on a worldwide basis since January 1, 2001, and also has registered trademark rights in the ACCENTURE in more than 140 countries. Complaint, Annex E.
Complainant has advertised its services featuring its ACCENTURE mark extensively. Since 2009 and through 2017, Complainant has annually spent between USD 66 million and USD 77 million on such advertising. Complaint, Annex F. Complainant has registered and is using the domain name to resolve to a website promoting the various services it offers under the ACCENTURE mark. Complaint, Annex F.
Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark has been listed in the Fortune Global 500 marks for the past 16 years. Since 2002 the ACCENTURE mark has been recognized in Interbrand’s Best Global Brands Report, and in 2017 was ranked 37th in the world. Complaint, Annex H. The ACCENTURE mark has been included in the Brandz – Top 100 Brand Ranking since 2006, and in 2017 ranked number 37. Complaint, Annex I. Millions of sports fans have encountered the ACCENTURE mark through its sponsorship of the 6 Nations Rugby Championship from 2012 to 2017, and of the World Golf Championships, including the title sponsor of the season opening event, the Accenture Match Play Championship. Complaint, Annex K. The ACCENTURE mark has also been employed as the concert sponsor for the Rheingau Musik Festival in Germany. Complaint, Annex L.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on June 27, 2018. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that is listed as “under Construction.” Complaint, Annex U. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name, , is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered famous trademark ACCENTURE. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name in that Respondent has never been authorized, licensed, or in any way given permission to use Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark, nor has it made any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Complainant contends that Respondent has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith, since it should have or was aware of Complainant’s famous ACCENTURE service mark and has failed to use the disputed domain name since its registration. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute:
“A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) that the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and,
(ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and,
(iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.” A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name consists of what is essentially a misspelling of Complainant’s famous ACCENTURE mark. The disputed domain name has simply dropped one of the two consecutive letter c’s in the mark and added a second “t” to the existing “t” in the mark. In other words, Respondent has substituted “acentture” for “ACCENTURE.” Moreover, if one were to apply a typical English pronunciation to each, they would sound identical. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous service mark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, UDRP panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1.
In the present case Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and Respondent has failed to assert any such rights. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The disputed domain name is not only similar in appearance to the fanciful and famous ACCENTURE trademark, but it also would sound identical if pronounced as an English speaker would pronounce the mark and the disputed domain name, but for the addition of the .com suffix. It is virtually impossible to conceive of a use of the disputed domain name that would not cause a reasonable Internet user to be confused. The fact that no attempt to make a legitimate use of the disputed domain name has been made and that the disputed domain name was registered long after Complainant’s trademark had become an internationally famous brand also evidences bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been 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 Complainant.
M. Scott Donahey
Sole Panelist
Date: November 12, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy