The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited, Ireland, represented by McDermott Will & Emery LLP, United States of America (“United States”).
The Respondent is Joerg Schneider, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 21, 2019. On October 22, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 23, 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 the same day, 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 28, 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 31, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 20, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 21, 2019. The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on November 29, 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 name was registered on August 8, 2019 and is not resolving 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 name It is the consensus view of UDPR panels that the addition of descriptive terms, such as “procurement”, 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). The disputed domain name is 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 name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant nor making any bona fide use of the disputed domain name. 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 name is not resolving to an active website. This lack of use of the disputed domain name is a strong indication of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (“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 name. 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 name is in bad faith. Such circumstances include the strength and notoriety of the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark and the Respondent’s failure to take part in the present proceedings (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 name is 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 Fondée 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 name 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 name Tobias Zuberbühler
Sole Panelist
Date: December 12, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy