The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited, Ireland, represented by McDermott Will & Emery LLP, United States of America (“United States”).
The Respondent is Kings Omoba, Egypt. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 31, 2019. On January 2, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 2, 2020, 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 January 10, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 30, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 11, 2020. The Center appointed Anne-Virginie La Spada as the sole panelist in this matter on February 20, 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 The Complainant provides a broad range of management consulting, technology services and outsourcing services under the name “Accenture” worldwide. It began using the name and trademark ACCENTURE on January 1, 2001. The trademark ACCENTURE has been recognized as a leading global brand. The Complainant is the owner of various registrations worldwide for the trademark ACCENTURE, including United States trademark registration number 3,091,811 registered on May 16, 2006, in relation to goods and services of classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41, and 42. The Complainant owns the domain name The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on December 4, 2019. The disputed domain name resolves to a parked page provided by the Registrar. Links to third party websites are available on the page. The Complainant sent an email message on December 12, 2019 to the Respondent through the email address provided in the WhoIs details. The Complainant asked the Respondent to explain the registration of the disputed domain name and to name the Complainant’s employees authorizing the activity. The Respondent did not reply. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its famous ACCENTURE trademark and that the insertion of the letter “i” between the last two letters “r” and “e” constitutes typosquatting, which is insufficient to distinguish this disputed domain name from the ACCENTURE trademark. Further, the Complainant argues that the Respondent is neither affiliated with, nor has it been licensed or permitted to use the ACCENTURE mark or any domain names incorporating ACCENTURE. The Complainant also claims that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, it is clear that the choice of the use a typosquatted version of the famous ACCENTURE trademark aims at creating a direct affiliation with the Complainant and its business. Therefore, the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name within the meaning of the Policy. In addition, the Complainant alleges that given its worldwide reputation and the ubiquitous presence of the ACCENTURE trademarks on the Internet, the Respondent was or should have been aware of the ACCENTURE trademarks before registering the disputed domain name. The Complainant alleges that Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant must assert and prove each of the following: (i) the domain name registered by the respondent 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 domain name registered by the respondent has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant owns various trademark registrations for the mark ACCENTURE. The disputed domain name UDRP panels consider that the misspelling of the complainant’s trademark (typosquatting) can constitute confusing similarity for purposes of the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. This is the case if the disputed domain name consists of a common, obvious or intentional misspelling (see section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)). In the present case, the mark ACCENTURE is entirely reproduced in the disputed domain name and the interspersion of the “i” at the end of the word is barely perceivable. As a result, the disputed domain name is not different enough from the ACCENTURE trademark to avoid confusing similarity. UDRP panels also accept that a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), such as “.com”, could be disregarded when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusing similar to a trademark (see section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). The Complainant has thus satisfied the condition set forth in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Based on the information submitted by the Complainant, the Respondent does not appear to have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, nor has the Complainant granted to the Respondent an authorization to use the disputed domain name. Moreover, there is no evidence indicating that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or the name “Accenture”. The Respondent did not file a response to the Complaint. The Panel may draw from the lack of a Response the inferences that it considers appropriate, according to the Rules, paragraph 14(b). The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent’s silence corroborates such prima facie case. Moreover, the parking of the disputed domain name to a page offering links to third party websites supports the apparent lack of rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name (see Woolworths Limited v. DomainAdminkPrivacyProtect.org / Smvs Consultancy Private Limited,WIPO Case No. D2010-1046). Accordingly, the Panel rules that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the Complainant has satisfied the condition set out in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Given the well-known character of the ACCENTURE trademark, the Panel accepts that the Respondent most probably knew of the Complainant’s trademark when it registered the disputed domain name. In the case at hand, the trademark ACCENTURE is well-known, the Respondent failed to submit a Response or to allege any actual or contemplated use. In addition, it is likely that the Respondent did not provide accurate contact details. Indeed, the street address mentioned in the WhoIs details, namely “eefefefef, rfrffrf” is obviously not credible. With respect to the plausibility of any good faith use, it is difficult to imagine what legitimate use the Respondent could make of the disputed domain name, given the fact that the disputed domain name is nearly identical to the Complainant’s trademark and that there is no relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant. Furthermore, the presence of (presumably sponsored) links to third party websites on the page to which the disputed domain name resolves supports a finding of use in bad faith. Indeed, the redirection to a webpage with sponsored links suggests, in the Panel’s opinion, an intention on the part of the Respondent to exploit and profit from the Complainant’s trademark, by attempting to generate financial gains by means of “click through” revenues. Such conduct constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy (see F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. James Lee,WIPO Case No. D2009-1199; Scania CV AB v. Michael Montrief,WIPO Case No. D2009-1149; Aspen Holdings Inc. v. Rick Natsch, Potrero Media Corporation, supra; and AllianceBernstein LP v. Texas International Property Associates,WIPO Case No. D2008-1230). For the reasons set out above, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, and that the Complainant has satisfied the condition set forth in 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 Anne-Virginie La Spada
Sole Panelist
Date: March 5, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy