The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited, Ireland, represented by McDermott Will & Emery LLP, United States of America (“U.S.A.”).
The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1245128466, Canada / Karanvir Singh, U.S.A. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 4, 2019. On September 6, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 7, 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 September 9, 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 September 14, 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 September 17, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 7, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 15, 2019. The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on October 24, 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, founded in 2009 as Accenture, is an international business that provides management consultancy, technology, and outsourcing services. The Complainant’s business is based in Ireland and has presence in over 200 cities in 56 countries. It has also done extensive worldwide advertising for its brand. The Complainant is the owner of various ACCENTURE trademarks in the United States in different classes of goods and services including Registration No. 3,091,811 in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41, and 42 (registered on May 16, 2006); Registration no. 2,665,373 in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41, and 42 (registered in December 24, 2002); Registration No. 3,340,780 in classes 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, and 28 (registered in November 20, 2007); Registration No. 2,884,125 in classes 18, 25, and 28 (registered in September 14, 2004); and, Registration No. 3,862,419 in classes 35 and 36 (registered in October 19, 2010). The Complainant also owns more than 1,000 registrations for the ACCENTURE trademark in more than 140 countries. The Complainant is also the owner of domain name The Respondent is an individual based in U.S.A. The disputed domain name was registered on July 25, 2019, and does not resolve to an active page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name No rights or legitimate Interests The Respondent has no connection with the Complainant or any of its affiliates and has never sought or obtained any trademark registrations for ACCENTURE. It, therefore, has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There is also no relationship between the Parties and the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Registered and used in bad faith The Complainant submits that there is no doubt that before registration of the disputed domain name the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s rights in the ACCENTURE trademark given its worldwide reputation and the extensive advertisements seen under its trade name in the world, which includes the U.S.A. The Respondent acquired the disputed domain name to disrupt the business of the Complainant and/or to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name The disputed domain name is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark. The first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint to assert any rights or legitimate interests. Section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) provides: “While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, 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”. The Respondent has no business or any kind of relationships (i.e. licensor, distributor) with the Complainant. Considering the absence of a response by the Respondent to the Complainant’s contentions and the fact that the Respondent was granted neither a license nor an authorization to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark, the Panel finds the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that the disputed domain name The fact that the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active page does not preclude a finding that it has been used in bad faith. It is well established that passive use or non-use of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3). See also Telstra Corporative Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallow,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. Under all the circumstances of this case as described above, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s mark in mind and has used the disputed domain name in bad faith. The third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied. 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 Douglas Clark
Sole Panelist
Date: November 8, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy