The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited, Ireland, represented by McDermott Will & Emery LLP, United States of America (“United States”).
The Respondent is Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with A, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 13, 2019. On August 13, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 14, 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 the Complainant on August 15, 2019 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 17, 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 August 21, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 10, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 11, 2019.
The Center appointed Adam Samuel as the sole panelist in this matter on September 20, 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
The Complainant is a member of a group of companies that together provide management consulting, technology and outsourcing services. The Complainant owns a number of trademarks for the name ACCENTURE in a variety of countries including a United States trademark, registration number 3091811, registered on May 16, 2006.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 20, 2009. This domain name currently resolves to a parking page. The Complainant’s group promotes its businesses through the domain name , registered on August 29, 2000. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The disputed domain name is nearly identical to the Complainant’s famous ACCENTURE trademark and domain name. The only difference is the use of the letter “m” in the disputed domain name as a replacement for the letter “n” in the ACCENTURE mark. This creates both a potentially common QWERTY keyboard typographical misspelling in the disputed domain name and a phonetically similar pronunciation to the ACCENTURE trademark. The disputed domain name was registered more than seven years after the Complainant applied for the registration of its ACCENTURE mark in the United States. ACCENTURE is a coined term deserving as a result a wide scope of protection in the light of the ubiquitous nature of the brand it represents. The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to the disputed domain name is without legal significance. Inserting in the disputed domain name the letter “m” in the place of the letter “n” in the ACCENTURE trademark constitutes “typosquatting” and is generally insufficient to materially distinguish a domain name from another’s trademark.
The Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark is not a generic or descriptive term in which the Respondent might have an interest. The Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant. Nor has the Complainant licensed or permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s ACCENTURE marks or any domain names incorporating them. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any purpose at this time. Depending on the applicable Internet browser, the disputed domain name either resolves to a blank page with no content or it generates in some versions a security warning indicating that the disputed domain name constitutes as a web attack.
There is no reason for the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name other than to trade off the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s marks. Typosquatting constitutes strong evidence of bad faith. The Respondent has chosen the disputed domain name to trade off the reputation and goodwill associated with the Complainant’s ACCENTURE marks, to cause confusion amongst Internet users and the Complainant’s customers and to distribute malware or create other security risks. The Respondent was or should have been aware of the Complainant’s marks long before registering the disputed domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied:
(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 consists of a made-up word that appears to be a misspelling of the Complainant’s well-known trademark, ACCENTURE which is itself a made-up word and the gTLD “.com”. The gTLD is irrelevant here because it is a standard registration requirement. See section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
Section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 says of typosquatting:
“A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element.
This stems from the fact that the domain name contains sufficiently recognizable aspects of the relevant mark. …Examples of such typos include (i) adjacent keyboard letters, …”
Here the main part of the disputed domain name involves substituting the letter “m” for the letter “n” which are adjacent letters in the English alphabet and a standard typing keyboard. This is a case of typosquatting as described above, in the WIPO Overview 3.0.
For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not called “Accemture” or anything similar. There is no evidence that the Complainant has ever authorized the Respondent to use its trademarks. Based on the available record, and in the absence of any response on this point, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The name, “Accemture”, has no apparent independent existence or meaning except as a misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark. This was registered before the disputed domain name was registered. It is impossible, at least without a Response to the Complaint, to identify a reason why the Respondent registered the disputed domain name other than to attract business or Internet users to its site who were looking for a site connected to the Complainant’s trademark or business.
The only explanation of what has happened seems to be that the Respondent’s motive in registering and using the sites is one or more of disrupting the Complainant’s relationship with its actual or potential customers, attempting to attract Internet users for potential gain or persuading the Complainant to buy the domain name from him for an amount in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket expenses. These all constitute evidence of registration and use in bad faith: paragraph 4(b)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Policy. See also sections 3.14, 3.2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
For all these reasons, the Panel concludes that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. This makes it unnecessary for the Panel to deal with the other points made in support of the Complaint. 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.
Adam Samuel
Sole Panelist
Date: September 23, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy