Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited, United States of America (“USA”), represented by McDermott Will & Emery LLP, USA.
Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Popoola Johnson, USA. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 9, 2019. On April 9, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 9, 2019, 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 April 12, 2019 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 April 12, 2019.
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 April 16, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 6, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 7, 2019.
The Center appointed Sandra A. Sellers as the sole panelist in this matter on May 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
Complainant began using the mark ACCENTURE for various services, including management consulting, technology services and outsourcing services, on January 1, 2001. Complainant has used the mark consistently since that time. On October 6, 2000, Complainant filed an application in the United States for the ACCENTURE mark, for computer software, pamphlets, business consulting services, financial services, computer installation services, educational services and computer consulting services. The Complaint lists a table of sample US trademark registrations for ACCENTURE and its design marks. Complainant also owns over 1,000 registrations for ACCENTURE and its design mark in more than 140 countries.
Complainant owns and operates the domain name , which was registered on August 30, 2000. This website contains information about Complainant’s various services, including management consulting, technology, outsourcing, and others.
Complainant and its ACCENTURE marks have been recognized by many brand consulting and valuation companies, such as Interbrand’s Best Global Brands Report (ranked 34th in 2018), BrandZ – Top 100 Brand Rankings (32nd in 2018), and in Fortune’s Global 500 and Fortune’s 100 Most Admired Companies (40th in 2018). Complainant has received numerous awards for services provided under the ACCENTURE mark, set forth in the Complaint. Including the US Trademark Registration No. 3091811 filed for on October 26, 2000 and registered on May 16, 2006 for goods and services of Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42. Complainant has used the ACCENTURE mark in worldwide advertising, and sponsorships of various sports and cultural institutions. Given all of these recognitions and activities, the ACCENTURE marks have become distinctive and famous globally.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 3, 2019. The webpage shows related pay-per-click links to: Car Insurance; Credit Cards; Life Insurance; Comcast; Cheap Flights; Online Colleges; and Flowers. The Whois Lookup reflects the Respondent’s address as One Valero Way, San Antonio, Texas, US, which is false. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant asserts that it has rights in the ACCENTURE trademark. It contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it consists of Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark in its entirety, and that the only difference between Complainant’s mark and the disputed domain name are the addition of “llp”, which is an abbreviation for “limited liability company”, and the addition of USA, a geographic indicator. Complainant further alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that it registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest a respondent of a domain name, a complainant must demonstrate each of the following:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which complainant has rights; and
(ii) 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
To satisfy paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights.
As set forth above, Complainant began using the mark ACCENTURE for various services, including management consulting, technology services and outsourcing services, on January 1, 2001. Complainant has used the mark consistently since that time. On October 6, 2000, Complainant filed an application in the USA for the ACCENTURE mark, for computer software, pamphlets, business consulting services, financial services, computer installation services, educational services and computer consulting services. The Complaint lists a table of sample US trademark registrations for ACCENTURE and its design marks. Complainant also owns over 1,000 registrations for ACCENTURE and its design mark in more than 140 countries. Complainant clearly has rights in the ACCENTURE mark.
As held in other UDRP panel decisions, the ACCENTURE mark is famous and distinctive. Accenture Global Services Limited v ICS Inc/PrivacyP,WIPO Case No. D2013-2098.
Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark. It contains Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark in its entirety. The only difference between Complainant’s mark and the disputed domain name are the addition of “llp”, which is an abbreviation for “limited liability company”, and the addition of USA, a geographic indicator. Previous UDRP panels have found that additions of acronyms for companies are not enough to distinguish a disputed domain name from Complainant’s marks. Accenture Global Services Limited v WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc/Joshua Kimac,WIPO Case No. D2018-1641. In addition, the Panel also concurs with the finding of previous UDRP panels that the use of a famous mark in its entirety together with a geographic term in a domain name creates a domain name that is confusingly similar to the famous mark. See e.g., Playboy Enterprises International Inc. v. Joao Melancia, WIPO Case No. D2006-1106; AT&T Corp. v. WorldclassM, WIPO Case No. D2000-0553; Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. CredoN / Domain Name for Sale,WIPO Case No. D2005-0755; Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. Midas Search Limited,WIPO Case No. D2004-0986; Six Continents Hotels, Inc., Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation. v. South East Asia Tours,WIPO Case No. D2004-0388.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the ACCENTURE mark and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Because it is generally difficult for a complainant to prove the fact that a respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name, previous UDRP panels have found it sufficient for a complainant to make a prima facie showing of its assertion where there has been no response.
Complainant has exclusive rights in the ACCENTURE mark and has not authorized Respondent to register and use the disputed domain name . Respondent is not affiliated with or related to Complainant, nor is Respondent licensed or authorized to use the ACCENTURE mark. Respondent is not known under the mark. Respondent has made no showing that it has any rights or legitimate interests in using the disputed domain name or a bona fide offering of goods or services under the mark. On the evidence before the Panel, Respondent does not appear to make any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Panel is satisfied that Complainant has made a prima facie showing of Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent is in default, and has not provided any evidence in its own favor.
The Panel finds that the evidence in the record is sufficient to establish that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and thus Complainant meets the second criterion of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
It is difficult to conceive that Respondent did not know of Complainant’s marks and products when Respondent registered the disputed domain name. As set forth above, Complainant’s products and services are protected by various US and international trademark registrations for ACCENTURE. All of this occurred before Respondent registered on March 3, 2019. Based on these facts, this Panel infers that Respondent was aware or must have been aware of Complainant’s mark when Respondent registered the disputed domain name, and therefore registered it in bad faith. See, e.g., Jupiters Limited v. Aaron Hall,WIPO Case No. D2000-0574, in which the UDRP panel found it “inevitable that [r]espondent registered the domain names in full knowledge of [c]omplainant’s rights and interests”.
Additionally, under 15 USC §1072, registration of the ACCENTURE mark constitutes constructive notice of the mark. Respondent therefore had legal, if not actual, notice of Complainant’s mark prior to registering the disputed domain name.
Previous UDRP panels have concluded that registering the disputed domain name by using a proxy service can be evidence of bad faith. See Accenture Global Services Limited v ICS Inc/PrivacyP, WIPO Case No. D2013-2098 (“[u]se of privacy or proxy registration service is not in and of itself an indication of bad faith. However, taking into account the circumstances surrounding the present case … registration of the disputed domain name using the proxy service with the obvious purpose of concealment of the Respondent’s identity can be considered a further indication of the Respondent’s bad faith.”). Here, Respondent provided false contact information when it registered the disputed domain name. Failure to provide accurate and up to date on the WhoIs record constitutes evidence of bad faith. See eBay Inc v SGR Enterprises and Joyce Ayers,WIPO Case No. D2001-0259.
The disputed domain name reverts to a landing page that displays links to third-party websites. Respondent’s website intentionally attempts to attract Internet users for commercial gain by linking to websites of unrelated companies. This creates a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of a product or service. It has long been held that this type of click through revenue violates the Policy under paragraph 4(b)(iv). See, eg., Express Scripts, Inc. v. Windgather Investments Ltd. / Mr. Cartwright, WIPO Case No. D2007-0267.
The Panel finds that Respondent also has used the domain name in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) 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.
Sandra A. Sellers
Sole Panelist
Date: May 29, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy