The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited, Ireland, represented by McDermott Will & Emery LLP, United States of America (“United States”).
The Respondent is Perfect Privacy, LLC, United States / Juan Casas, 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 April 6, 2020. On April 6, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 7, 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 April 14, 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 on April 17, 2020. 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 April 27, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 17, 2020. The Respondent contacted the Center by way of emails dated April 20, April 23 and May 11, 2020, but did not file a formal Response. The Center notified the Commencement of Panel Appointment on May 21, 2020. The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on May 26, 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. The Panel directs that the Respondent’s informal communications referred to above shall stand as its Response in this proceeding. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a company incorporated in Ireland. It is an international provider of strategic, consulting, digital, technology and operational services to business. The Complainant is the owner of registrations for the trademark ACCENTURE in numerous jurisdictions. Those registrations include, for example, United States trademark number 3091811 for the word mark ACCENTURE, registered on May 16, 2006 in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41, and 42. The Complainant offers services to United States government clients under the name “Accenture Federal Services.” The disputed domain name was registered on March 12, 2020. The disputed domain name has resolved to a web page including links to business and financial services and specifically including a link labelled “Accenture Federal Services.” 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant states that it has carried on business since January 1, 2001, including from its website located at “www.accenture.com”, and that it has offices and operations in 200 cities in 56 countries worldwide. It provides details of its annual advertising expenditure, including USD 67 million in 2018. It also submits evidence of substantial business service and brand recognition worldwide, including numerous industry awards and significant media coverage. The Complainant submits that, as a result of these matters, its ACCENTURE mark was widely known throughout the world long before the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. The Complainant also highlights its use of the “Accenture Federal Services” trading name. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights. It states that the disputed domain name incorporates its ACCENTURE mark, which is a distinctive coined term. It submits that the addition of the term “federai” is not effective to prevent confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark, and that the likely explanation for the inclusion of that term is that it is a deliberate misspelling of the term “federal” as also used by the Complainant. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It states that it has never authorized the Respondent to use its ACCENTURE trademark, that the Respondent has not been commonly known by that name, and that the Respondent is making neither bona fide commercial use nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Instead, the Complainant contends that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name, comprising its ACCENTURE trademark and the misspelled term “federai”, misleadingly to lure Internet users to its click-through website for commercial gain. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant states that, in view of the distinctive nature and longstanding reputation of its ACCENTURE mark prior to the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, there is no reason for the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name otherwise than to take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s trademark. In particular, the Complainant submits that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion between the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark and the Respondent’s pay-per-click website. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent submits that, while the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark are alike, they are not the same. The Respondent states that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because: “[…] we are in the middle of registering an organization that will front/back end development, produce technical content, as well as promising internal projects.” The Respondent provides no supporting evidence in this regard. The Respondent denies in the circumstances that the disputed domain name was registered or has been used in bad faith. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established that it has registered trademark rights in the name and mark ACCENTURE. The Panel finds this to be a coined term which is distinctive of the Complainant. The disputed domain name comprises the entirety of the Complainant’s trademark together with the addition of the term “federai”. In the view of the Panel, the addition of this term is not effective to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark, and the Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests In the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s submissions set out above give rise to a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent states that it registered the disputed domain name in connection with a client project, but provides no evidence in support of that assertion and, crucially, no explanation of why it selected a name corresponding to the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark for this purpose. Nor does the Respondent explain why the disputed domain name has resolved to what appears to be a pay-per-click site including links to business services, including one labelled “Accenture Federal Services.” The Panel concludes in the circumstances that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name to target the Complainant’s trademark and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith As stated above, the Panel finds the name and mark ACCENTURE to be a coined term which is distinctive of the Complainant. The Respondent has offered no explanation for its inclusion of that trademark in the disputed domain name, nor its combination with the seemingly meaningless term “federai”, which the Complainant contends is likely to be a misspelling of “federal”. In the absence of any explanation from the Respondent, the Panel infers on balance that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the Complainant and its “Accenture Federal Services” business in mind. Furthermore, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for the purposes of a pay-per-click website including links to business services, one of which is labelled “Accenture Federal Services.” The Panel concludes therefore, that by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that website or of a product or service on that website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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, Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: May 29, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy