The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited, Ireland, represented by McDermott Will & Emery LLP, United States of America (“United States”).
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 21, 2019. On November 21, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On November 22, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the 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 December 2, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 22, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 2, 2020. The Center appointed Jacques de Werra as the sole panelist in this matter on January 15, 2020. 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 Since January 2001, the Complainant has extensively used and continues to use the mark ACCENTURE in connection with various services and specialties, including management consulting and business process services, which comprises various aspects of business operations such as supply chain and logistics services, as well as technology services and outsourcing services. The Complainant has offices and operations in more than 200 cities in 56 countries. The Complainant owns more than 1,000 registrations for the ACCENTURE trademark, the ACCENTURE & Design trademark, and many other trademarks incorporating ACCENTURE for a variety of products and services in more than 140 countries, including United States trademark registration (Reg. No. 3,091,811) which was registered on May 16, 2006, and which covers (among other goods and services) computer software, pamphlets, business consulting services, financial services, computer installation services, educational services, and computer consulting services (“the Trademark”). The Complainant and the ACCENTURE brand have been recognized globally. For the past 16 years, the Complainant has been listed in the Fortune Global 500, which ranks the world’s largest companies. The Complainant has appeared in various other top rankings by Fortune, including its most recent valuation of the ACCENTURE brand as ranking #36 on Forbes “World’s Most Valuable Brands”. The Complainant registered the domain name According to the WhoIs record, the Disputed Domain Name was registered on November 2, 2019. It resolves to a website that provides various sponsored click-through links, which direct Internet users to additional search pages or third-party commercial websites. When the Complainant became aware of the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name, on November 4, 2019, the Complainant sent an email message to the email address listed in the WhoIs information for the Disputed Domain Name inquiring as to the Respondent’s purpose for registering the Disputed Domain Name and requesting a reply to same. The Respondent has not provided any reply to the Complainant’s correspondence. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant claims that the Disputed Domain Name is nearly identical to the Complainant’s famous Trademark and to the The Respondent’s addition of the words “my” and “holdings” to the Disputed Domain Name containing the Trademark does nothing to reduce its confusing similarity with the Complainant’s Trademark. As such, Internet users are very likely to be confused as to whether an association exists between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant. The Complainant’s Trademark is not a generic or descriptive term in which the Respondent might have an interest. The Complainant’s Trademark is globally famous and has acquired secondary meaning through the Complainant’s substantial, continuous, and exclusive use of the Trademark in connection with Complainant’s goods and services. The Respondent is neither affiliated with, nor has it been licensed or permitted to use the Complainant’s Trademark or any domain names incorporating the Trademark. The Disputed Domain Name WhoIs information is protected via a proxy service but, on information and belief, the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, nor was it known as such prior to the date on which the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name to trade on the value of Complainant’s Trademark. As such, it is clear that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name and it appears that the Respondent has chosen to use Complainant’s famous Trademark as its Disputed Domain Name to create a direct affiliation with the Complainant and its business. Therefore, the Respondent is not making a legitimate, noncommercial fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent is also not using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services because the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to host a website that promotes other commercial links and websites. The Disputed Domain Name currently resolves to a website that provides various sponsored click-through links, which direct Internet users to additional search pages or third-party commercial websites. The Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name to run click-through links or to redirect users to sponsored websites does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods and services, and it is presumed that the Respondent received compensation for each misdirected user. The Respondent is also not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. Instead, it appears that the Respondent is concerned with the intentional attracting of Internet users, and employs the Trademark to create initial interest confusion and then capitalizes on such misdirected traffic to generate click-through revenue. Such use does not constitute a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name under Policy paragraph 4(c)(iii), and it appears that Respondent has chosen the Disputed Domain Name to trade off the reputation and goodwill associated with Complainant’s Trademark and to misleadingly divert Internet traffic from Complainant’s website to Respondent’s website for commercial gain. Given the Complainant’s worldwide reputation and the ubiquitous presence of the Trademark on the Internet, Respondent was or should have been aware of the Trademark long prior to registering the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name to redirect Internet users to commercial websites through various sponsored click-through links is in bad faith and indicates that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with the intent to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. Given the well-known status of the Complainant’s Trademark and the Complainant’s registration and use of the The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that the complainant must prove each of the following three elements in order to succeed in a UDRP proceeding: (i) the respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (iii) the respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has rights to a trademark or service mark as reflected in the Trademark. A comparison between the Disputed Domain Name and the Trademark shows that the Disputed Domain Name is clearly confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark, the only difference consisting in the addition of the terms “my” and “holdings” in the Disputed Domain Name. As a result, based on the rights of the Complainant in the Trademark and on the confusing similarity between the Trademark and the Disputed Domain Name, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the Respondent may establish rights to or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name by demonstrating any of the following: (i) before any notice to it of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) the Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, even if it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain, to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Although the complainant bears the ultimate burden of providing all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, previous UDRP panels have consistently ruled that the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, once the complainant has made a prima facie showing. See Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0270. In the Panel’s opinion, the Complainant has made a prima facie case against the Respondent. The Respondent indeed registered the Disputed Domain Name, which fully incorporates the distinctive Trademark owned by the Complainant, and uses it in connection with landing page pointing to third party websites in what certainly constitutes as a Pay-Per-Click (“PPC”) system. The Complainant has also established that the Respondent has not been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, also knowing that the Disputed Domain Name WhoIs information is protected via a proxy service. The Panel thus accepts the Complainant’s prima facie showing and finds that it was consequently up to the Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, which has not been done given the Respondent’s absence of participation in these proceedings. In addition, the Panel notes that the Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a parking page pointing to third-party websites for remuneration (PPC). The Panel approves the finding made by other UDRP panels that have decided that the use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s mark or otherwise mislead Internet users. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.9. The Panel notes that this is the case here given the reputation of the Trademark and of the Complainant and given the fact that the use of the Trademark made in the Disputed Domain Name in connection with dictionary terms (“my” and “holdings”) can only mislead Internet users. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, shall be considered evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that the Respondent registered or acquired the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Disputed Domain Name registration to the Complainant (the owner of the trademark or service mark) or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Disputed Domain name; (ii) circumstances indicating that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; (iii) circumstances indicating that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) circumstances indicating that the Respondent intentionally is using the Disputed Domain Name in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location. The examples of bad faith registration and use set forth in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy are not meant to be exhaustive of all circumstances from which such bad faith may be found. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. The overriding objective of the Policy is to curb the abusive registration of domain names in circumstances where the registrant is seeking to profit from and exploit the trademark of another. See Match.com, LP v. Bill Zag and NWLAWS.ORG,WIPO Case No. D2004-0230. In this case, the Panel holds that the Respondent registered and uses the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith because the Trademark is distinctively identifying the Complainant and the Complainant’s activities so that the choice of the Disputed Domain Name cannot be reasonably explained otherwise than as a reference to the Trademark of the Complainant. The Panel considers that Respondent registered and uses the Disputed Domain Name with the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the trademark of Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a service on its website or location, which constitutes registration and use in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. On this basis, the Panel considers that the Complainant has established that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent pursuant to 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 Jacques de Werra
Sole Panelist
Date: January 22, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy