The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited, Ireland, represented by McDermott Will & Emery LLP, United States of America (“United States”).
The Respondent is Leed Johnny (蒋黎), China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint in English was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 6, 2020. On March 9, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 10, 2020, 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 March 16, 2020 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 in English on March 18, 2020. On March 16, 2020, the Center transmitted an email communication to the Parties in English and Chinese regarding the language of the proceeding. On March 18, 2020, the Complainant submitted a request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding. 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 in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 25, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 14, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 15, 2020. The Center appointed Deanna Wong Wai Man as the sole panelist in this matter on April 28, 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 in this proceeding is a global consultancy and professional services company headquartered in Ireland, with operations in numerous countries across the world. The Complainant has been listed for over 18 years in the Fortune Global 500, which is a ranking of the world’s 500 largest companies. The Complainant also provides evidence that it has received various global business awards and is listed highly in several global brand rankings. The Complainant owns a portfolio of trademark registrations (word and device marks) for ACCENTURE, for instance, United States trademark registration number 2665373, registered on December 24, 2002, and United States trademark registration number 3091811, registered on May 16, 2006. The disputed domain name was created on February 24, 2020 and is linked to an active website, displaying what are presumed to be pay-per-click hyperlinks to third party service providers of human resources and employment-related services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant essentially contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its prior trademarks for ACCENTURE, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered, and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant claims that its trademark is famous and well-regarded in the consultancy and professional services sector, and provides evidence of its marketing materials, advertising expenditure and awards, as well as prior decisions in UDPR proceedings, which state that the Complainant and its ACCENTURE trademark are well known (see, for instance, Accenture Global Services Limited v. ICS Inc. / PrivacyProtect.org,WIPO Case No. D2013-2098). Moreover, the Complainant provides evidence that the disputed domain name is linked to an active website displaying what are presumed to be pay-per-click hyperlinks to third party providers of human resources and employment-related services, and that the disputed domain name has been linked to an email server. The Complainant essentially contends that such use does not confer any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and constitutes registration and use in bad faith. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceeding Pursuant to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement. However, the Panel is given the authority to determine a language of proceeding other than the language of the Registration Agreement, taking into account the circumstances of every individual case. According to the Registrar’s verification response of March 10, 2020, the Registration Agreement is in Chinese. Nevertheless, the Complainant filed its Complaint and amended Complaint in English, and requests that the language of the proceeding be English. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding. In considering the Complainant’s request that the language of the proceeding be English, the Panel has carefully considered all elements of this case, in particular, the Complainant’s request that the language of the proceeding be English; the lack of comment on the language of the proceeding and the lack of response on the merits of the Respondent (the Panel notes that the Respondent had the opportunity to put forward arguments in either English or Chinese); the fact that the disputed domain name contains an English term (“payroll”) and resolves to an active webpage which only contains text in English (and contains no text in Chinese), so that the Panel concludes that the Respondent is able to understand and communicate in English; and the fact that Chinese as the language of the proceeding could lead to unwarranted costs and delays for the Complainant. In view of all these elements, the Panel rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English. 6.2. Discussion and Findings on the merits The Policy requires the Complainant to prove three elements: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Based on the evidence and arguments submitted, the Panel’s findings are as follows: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant has shown sufficient evidence that it has valid rights in the sign ACCENTURE, based on its intensive use and registration of the same as a trademark in several jurisdictions. Moreover, as to confusing similarity, the Panel refers to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (the “WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8, which states: “where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.” The Panel considers that the disputed domain name consists of two elements: the descriptive word “payroll” as the first element, and the Complainant’s trademark ACCENTURE as the second element. The applicable generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) (“.com” in this case) is viewed as a standard registration requirement, and may as such be disregarded by the Panel, see in this regard the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1. Accordingly the Panel rules that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, and the first element required by the Policy is fulfilled. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests On the basis of the evidence and arguments submitted, the Panel holds that the Complainant makes out a prima facie case that the Respondent is not, and has never been, an authorized reseller, service provider, licensee or distributor of the Complainant, and that the Respondent is not a bona fide provider of goods or services under the disputed domain name and is not making legitimate noncommercial use or fair use of the Complainant’s trademarks. The Panel also notes that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. As such, the Panel finds that the burden of production regarding this element shifts to the Respondent (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1). However, no evidence or arguments have been submitted by the Respondent in reply. Moreover, upon review of the facts, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name directs to an active webpage containing what are presumed to be pay-per-click hyperlinks to third party service providers of employment and human resources services. This shows the Respondent’s intention to divert consumers for commercial gain to such third party websites, by taking unfair advantage of the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant’s trademarks for ACCENTURE (see also previous UDRP decisions in this sense such as Maker Studios, Inc. v. ORM LTD / Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0137258808,WIPO Case No. D2014-0918 and Comerica Incorporated v. Balticsea LLC / Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0131519121,WIPO Case No. D2013-0932). The Panel notes that the Respondent has not responded to the Complainant’s prima facie case. On the basis of the foregoing, the Panel considers that none of the circumstances of rights or legitimate interests envisaged by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy apply, and that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the second element under the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The registration of the disputed domain name, which incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, with the addition of the descriptive term “payroll”, is clearly intended to mislead and divert consumers away from the Complainant’s official websites, to the website linked to the disputed domain name. Given the reputation and fame of the Complainant’s trademark, the Panel holds that the registration of the disputed domain name was obtained in bad faith. Moreover, even a cursory Internet search at the time of registration of the disputed domain name would have made it clear to the Respondent that the Complainant owned a registered trademark in ACCENTURE and uses it extensively. In the Panel’s view, the preceding elements clearly indicate the bad faith of the Respondent, and the Panel therefore rules that it has been demonstrated that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. As to use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the website linked to the disputed domain name displays pay-per-click hyperlinks to third party service providers of human resources and employment-related services, which shows that the Respondent is misleading and diverting consumers for commercial gain to such third party websites. Moreover, the Complainant also provides evidence that the email exchanger (MX) records for the disputed domain name indicate that the Respondent has connected the disputed domain name to an email server, which creates a grave risk that the Respondent may be using the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, for potential phishing and spamming activities (see in this sense also previous UDRP decisions such as Carrefour v. WhoisGuard, Inc., WhoisGuard Protected / Robert Jurek, Katrin Kafut, Purchasing clerk, Starship Tapes & Records,WIPO Case No. D2017-2533). The preceding elements lead the Panel to conclude that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, to take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s trademarks. The Panel therefore rules that it has been demonstrated that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Finally, the Respondent has failed to provide any response or evidence to establish its good faith or absence of bad faith. The Panel therefore rules that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the third element under 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 Deanna Wong Wai Man
Sole Panelist
Date: May 6, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy