Complainant is ACCENTURE GLOBAL SERVICES LIMITED of Chicago, Illinois, the United States of America (“United States”), represented by DLA Piper US LLP, United States.
Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1243443199 of Toronto, Canada / Name Redacted.1 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Google Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 21, 2018. On November 22, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 26, 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 November 28, 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 November 28, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 7, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 27, 2018.
On December 11, 2018, the Center received emails from an individual indicating that the domain name had been registered using Respondent’s contact details without authorization. The Center emailed the Parties on the same day, notifying them of the Respondent identity issue. On January 2, 2019, the Center notified the Parties of the commencement of the panel appointment process.
The Center appointed Michael A. Albert as the sole panelist in this matter on January 15, 2019. 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
Since January 2001, Complainant has used and continues to use the mark ACCENTURE in connection with various services, including management consulting, technology services and outsourcing services. It has offices and operations in more than 200 cities in 56 countries.
Complainant has owned and operated the website at since August 30, 2000 to promote management consulting, technology services, outsourcing and other services offered by Complainant and its global offices in connection with the ACCENTURE Mark.
Complainant owns more than 1,000 registrations in more than 140 countries for the marks ACCENTURE, ACCENTURE & Design and many other marks incorporating the term ACCENTURE for a variety of products and services including, but not limited to, its management consulting, technology services and outsourcing services. Complainant’s various ACCENTURE trademarks in the United States include the following:
Mark
Goods and Services
Registration No.
Registration Date
ACCENTURE
Various goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42
3,091,811
May 16, 2006
ACCENTURE & Design
Various goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42
2,665,373
December 24, 2002
ACCENTURE
Various goods in Classes 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24 and 28
3,340,780
November 20, 2007
ACCENTURE
Various goods in Classes 18, 25 and 28
2,884,125
September 14, 2004
ACCENTURE & Design
Various services in Classes 35 and 36
3,862,419
October 19, 2010
For the past 16 years, Complainant has been listed in the Fortune Global 500, which ranks the world’s largest companies. The ACCENTURE Mark has been advertised in connection with various media. Below is a list of Complainant’s annual advertising expenditures worldwide since 2009:
Year
Advertising Expenditures (USD)
2009
77 million
2010
67 million
2011
66 million
2012
67 million
2013
69 million
2014
70 million
2015
67 million
2016
67 million
2017
69 million
The disputed domain name was registered on November 5, 2018, and does not presently resolve to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark, which has become distinctive and well known globally due to extensive use and promotion. The only difference between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s mark is that the disputed domain name adds the letter “i” in the middle of the ACCENTURE mark. Adding and/or subtracting a letter to/from a trademark without materially changing its appearance or meaning commonly constitutes “typosquatting” and is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity between the domain name and the trademark. See, e.g., ESPN, Inc. v. XC2, WIPO Case No. D2005-0444 (finding that the respondent’s domain name was confusingly similar to the ESPN and ESPNEWS trademarks and that deliberate, slight deviations in marks constitute typosquatting).
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has never been licensed or authorized or otherwise permitted to use Complainant’s mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Further, the website at the disputed domain name is currently inactive and a domain name that resolves to an inactive website is not used in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services.
Complainant alleges that Respondent’s conduct is in bad faith. An email address associated with the disputed domain name was used to contact Complainant’s vendor on November 16, 2018, and the sender posed as Complainant and requested payment from the vendor of purported invoices. Registration of a domain name in an attempt to appear associated or affiliated with another to obtain money or other materials constitutes bad-faith use and registration. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. On December 11, 2018, a third party responded to the Written Notice of Complaint indicating that the domain name had been registered using its contact details without authorization. The third party stated, “I have no knowledge of or connection with the domain name ‘’ nor am I actively protecting a domain name at this time…I consent to the remedy requested by Complainant and agree to transfer or cancel the disputed domain name.” 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s well-known ACCENTURE mark because it contains the entirety of Complainant’s mark with the addition of the letter “i” and the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Respondent is not known by Complainant’s mark. Complainant confirms that Respondent does not have license, permission, or authorization to use Complainant’s mark. There is no evidence demonstrating any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name by Respondent.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Respondent’s conduct in this case demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
Given the long use and renown of Complainant’s ACCENTURE marks, Respondent clearly knew or should have known of the ACCENTURE mark at the time Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name. Such knowledge is sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name was appropriated by Respondent in bad faith. See Caesars World, Inc. v. Forum LLC,WIPO Case No. D2005-0517 (finding bad faith where Respondent registered the domain name after it knew or should have known about Complainant’s trademarks).
Complainant provided evidence that Respondent’s intended use of the disputed domain name was and is to mislead the public for commercial gain. Respondent appears to have used the disputed domain name to engage in a phishing and/or identity theft scheme and fraud upon Complainant, by sending an email using the disputed domain name and purporting to be from Complainant.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 Complainant.
Michael A. Albert
Sole Panelist
Date: January 29, 2019
1 As Respondent may have been the victim of identity theft, the Panel has decided to redact Respondent’s name from the caption and body of this Decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this Decision an instruction to the Registrar which includes the name of Respondent. The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar, and has indicated that Annex 1 is not to be published due to the circumstances of this case. See Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST-12785241 Attn. B / Name Redacted,WIPO Case No. D2009-1788.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy