The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited, Ireland, represented by McDermott Will & Emery LLP, United States of America (“United States”).
The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1245449673, Canada / Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1245449674, Canada / ben jones, United States. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 14, 2019. On October 14, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On October 15, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 16, 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 October 18, 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 October 23, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 12, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 14, 2019. The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on November 27, 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 Accenture Global Services Limited, an international business that provides a broad range of services and solutions in strategy, consulting, digital, technology and operations under the name “Accenture”. The Complainant advertises and sells its services through its The Complainant owns the ACCENTURE trademark in the United States (e.g. United States registration No. 3,091,811 registered on May 16, 2006) as well as in various other jurisdictions. The disputed domain names were registered on September 12, 2019 and do not resolve to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant alleges that it has satisfied all elements of the Policy, paragraph 4. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings On the basis of the facts and evidence introduced by the Complainant, and with regard to paragraphs 4(a), (b) and (c) of the Policy, the Panel concludes as follows: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate its registered rights in the ACCENTURE trademark in numerous jurisdictions, including the United States. The ACCENTURE trademark is entirely reproduced in the disputed domain names A domain name is “identical or confusingly similar” to a trademark for the purposes of the Policy when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of other terms in the domain name (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO Case No. D2000-0662). Therefore, the addition of the letters “fb” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. Furthermore, it is the consensus view of UDPR panels that the addition of descriptive terms, such as “processing”, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), sections 1.7 and 1.8). Both disputed domain names are therefore confusingly similar with the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark, and the Complainant has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests There are no indications before the Panel of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain names. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant nor making any bona fide use of the disputed domain names. The Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or service or a legitimate noncommercial fair use of the domain names, as the disputed domain names are not resolving to an active website. This lack of use of the disputed domain names is a strong indication of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names (“Dr. Martens” International Trading GmbH and “Dr. Maertens” Marketing GmbH v. Godaddy.com, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2017-0246). Based on the Complainant’s credible contentions, the Panel finds that the Complainant, having made out a prima facie case which remains unrebutted by the Respondent, has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Under the circumstances of this case and considering the notoriety of the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark, it can be inferred that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademarks when registering the disputed domain names. UDPR panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3). In the case at hand, the overall circumstances indicate that the Respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain names is in bad faith. Such circumstances include the strength and notoriety of the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark, the Respondent’s failure to take part in the present proceedings and the use of a privacy service to conceal the Respondent’s identity (see Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 and “Dr. Martens” International Trading GmbH and “Dr. Maertens” Marketing GmbH v. Godaddy.com, Inc., supra). Furthermore, the disputed domain names are so obviously connected with such a well-known trademark that its very use by someone with no connection with the Complainant supports the finding of opportunistic bad faith (see Veuve Cliquot Ponsardin, Maison Fond e en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0163). It follows from the above that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. Accordingly, the Complainant has also fulfilled 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 names Tobias Zuberbühler
Sole Panelist
Date: December 11, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy