Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited, Ireland, represented by McDermott Will & Emery LLP, United States of America (“United States”).
Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Bryan LeBlanc, windrivar, 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 May 23, 2020. On May 25, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 25, 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 Complainant on May 30, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 3, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 5, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 25, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on June 28, 2020. The Center appointed Gabriel F. Leonardos as the sole panelist in this matter on July 2, 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 Complainant is an international company that provides a broad range of services and solutions in strategy, consulting, digital, technology and operations. Since January 2001, Complainant has extensively used and continues to use the trademark ACCENTURE to identify its activity. Other reputable brand consulting companies in the industry have recognized ACCENTURE as a leading global brand. Complainant has been awarded for its business services and brand recognition for the past 18 years. As an example, Complainant has been listed in the “Fortune Global 500”, which ranks the world’s largest companies. In addition, Complainant has appeared in various other top rankings by “Fortune”. Together with its consultant business, Complainant has collaborated with various groups on cultural and educational initiatives across the world. Complainant served as the Official Technology Partner for the RBS 6 Nations Rugby Championship since 2012; was a global umbrella sponsor of the World Golf Championships and the title sponsor of the series’ season-opening event, the “Accenture Match Play Championship”. Moreover, Complainant collaborated with the Louvre Museum to develop new programs to support the Louvre’s initiatives to spread culture. Complainant owns over 1,000 registrations – spread across 140 countries - for the trademarks “ACCENTURE”, “ACCENTURE & Design” and many other marks incorporating “ACCENTURE” sign for a variety of products and services. On 2000, Complainant filed its first United States trademark application. The following table incorporates a representative list of United States trademark registrations for the trademark ACCENTURE and its variations thereof: Trademark Goods and Services Registration No. Registration Date ACCENTURE Various goods and services in 3091811 May 16, 2006 ACCENTURE Various goods and services in 2665373 December 24, 2002 ACCENTURE Various goods in 3340780 November 20, 2007 ACCENTURE Various goods in 2884125 September 14, 2004 ACCENTURE & Various goods in Design 3862419 October 19, 2010 At last, it is important to note that Complainant owns its official domain name The disputed domain name Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademark ACCENTURE and its domain name In this regard, Complainant notices that the word “acceutnre” incorporated by the disputed domain name is an intentional misspelling of its trademark, what constitutes typosquatting, insufficient to materially distinguish a domain name from another’s trademark, and can cause consumer confusion, fulfilling the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy and paragraphs 3(b)(viii) and 3(b)(ix)(1) of the Rules. Furthermore, Complainant affirms that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the trademark ACCENTURE, nor any permission to register the trademark as a domain name. Complainant alleges that the webpage displayed through the disputed domain name is a “not found” page, meaning that there is no evidence of legitimate use of the disputed domain name for any activity or business. In addition, Complainant’s trademark is not a generic or descriptive term in which Respondent might have an interest. On the contrary, ACCENTURE is a globally famous company and its name has acquired distinctiveness through continuous and exclusive use of the marks to identify Complainant’s goods and services. These facts would indicate that Respondent cannot claim any trademark rights over the sign ACCENTURE, also fulfilling paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy and paragraph 3(b)(ix)(2) of the Rules. Moreover, Complainant submits that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor to make a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Indeed, it has come to Complainant’s attention that the disputed domain name has been used by Respondent to create an “@acceutnre.com” email address as an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant’s Chief Financial Officer, which implies an intent to use the disputed domain name for purposes of phishing or other fraudulent financial gain. Thus, Complainant sustain that paragraphs 4(a)(iii) and 4(b) of the Policy and paragraph 3(b)(ix)(3) of the Rules would have been fulfilled. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed, in a UDRP complaint, complainant must demonstrate that all the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied, as following: (i) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The burden of proving these elements is upon Complainant. Respondent had 20 days to submit a response in accordance with paragraph 5(a) of the Rules and failed to do so. Paragraph 5(f) of the Rules establishes that if a respondent does not respond to the Complaint, the Panel’s decision shall be based upon the Complaint. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant has duly proven the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy by showing evidence that it is the owner of several trademark registrations for ACCENTURE in jurisdictions throughout the world and that such trademark is contained in its entirety in the disputed domain name, with the sole difference that the letters “n”, “t”, and “u” are shuffled. Moreover, the first visual impression caused by the disputed domain name is the same of Complainant’s official domain name The Panel finds this to be a clear case of typosquatting, wherein Respondent has purposefully misspelled the trademark ACCENTURE. As decided in previous UDRP decisions, the practice of typosquatting creates domain names that are confusingly similar to a relevant trademark by, for example, removing or shuffling letters, as has occurred in this case. In this sense, the Panel refers to the decision of a similar case involving the same Complainant, Accenture Global Services Limited v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd,WIPO Case No. D2015-1922. Therefore, the Panel considers the requirements of the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy to be satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The consensus view of UDRP panels on the burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is summarized in section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) as follows: “[w]hile the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of ‘proving a negative’, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.” In this case, noting the facts and contentions listed above, the Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, so the burden of production shifts to Respondent. As Respondent has not replied to Complainant’s contentions, that burden has not been discharged, and the Panel has considered Complainant’s prima facie case to be sufficient to demonstrate that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii)). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists several circumstances that, without limitation, are deemed to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Those circumstances include: “(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your 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 your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.” The Panel finds it highly unlikely that Respondent had no knowledge of Complainant’s rights to the trademark ACCENTURE at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, taking into consideration that (i) Respondent used the disputed domain name to create an “@acceutnre.com” email address and tried to pass itself off as Complainant’s Chief Financial Office in an email sent to one of Complainant’s affiliate entities. Thus it is clear that Respondent’s intent was to use the disputed domain name for purposes of phishing or other fraudulent financial gain; (ii) the trademark ACCENTURE has no dictionary meaning, the term is solely a distinctive trademark created and owned by Complainant and; (iii) Complainant’s trademark ACCENTURE and its main domain name Furthermore, Respondent has engaged in typosquatting when registering the disputed domain name, a practice by which “a registrant deliberately introduces slight deviations into famous marks” for commercial gain. As already established, Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark, differing only by the shuffling of the letters “n”, “t”, and “u”. In this regard, the Panel refers to the UDRP decision in ESPN, Inc. v. XC2,WIPO Case No. D2005-0444 ( “It is well-settled that the practice of typosquatting, of itself, is evidence of the bad faith registration of a domain name. See, Longs Drug Stores Cal., Inc. v. Shep Dog, WIPO Case No. D2004-1069 (Finding typosquatting to be evidence of bad faith domain name registration); Lexar Media, Inc. v. Huang, WIPO Case No. D2004-1039 (“Typosquatting has been held under the Policy to be evidence of bad faith registration of a domain name”); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Longo, WIPO Case No. D2004-0816 (“[typosquatting] is presumptive of registration in bad faith”).” Given all the abovementioned, the evidence shows that Respondent was likely deliberately trying to create confusion and mislead Complainant’s costumers for commercial gain in an unlawful way. The fact that Respondent did not present any response to the Complaint reinforces the conclusion that Respondent acted in bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. As such, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied 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 Gabriel F. Leonardos
Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42
Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42
Classes 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24 and 28
Classes 18, 25 and 28
Classes 35 and 36
Sole Panelist
Date: July 16, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy