The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited, Ireland, represented by McDermott Will & Emery LLP, United States of America (“United States”).
The Respondent is Mohamed Elsheikh, Accenture Egypt, 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 June 6, 2020. On June 8, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 9, 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 June 10, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 30, 2020. The Response was filed with the Center on June 30, 2020. The Center appointed Andrew F. Christie as the sole panelist in this matter on July 13, 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 Complaint is stated to be submitted by the Complainant “along with its affiliates and predecessor Accenture Global Services GmbH”. The Complainant is an international business that provides a broad range of services and solutions in strategy, consulting, digital, technology and operations. It has offices and operations in more than 200 cities in 56 countries. For the past 16 years it has been listed in the Fortune Global 500, which ranks the world’s largest companies. The Complainant states that it is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for the trademark ACCENTURE, including United States Registration No. 3,091,811 (registered on May 16, 2006), and a number of Egypt registrations. In fact, with possibly only one exception, all of the certificates evidencing trademark registrations for the trademark ACCENTURE showed (where readable – which many were not) that the registrations were owned by an entity other than the Complainant – often, but not always, Accenture Global Services GmbH. One exception is India Registration No. 1,240,312 (registered on September 29, 2003), which the certificate shows is in the name of the Complainant. The Complainant owns the domain name The disputed domain name was registered on May 28, 2020. The Complainant has provided screenshots, taken on June 4, 2020, of the website resolving from the disputed domain name, at which appears a logo and the words “Accenture Egypt”, and text that includes: “Supply-Chain and Logistics Consultancy” and the logos and names of a number of organizations under the heading “Success Partners”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights because: (i) it is nearly identical to the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark, with the only difference being the addition of the geographic term “Egypt”; (ii) it was registered more than 18 years after the Complainant first registered its ACCENTURE trademark in the United States and in Egypt; (iii) the word “accenture” is not a descriptive or generic term but, rather, was coined by the Complainant, so consumers associate this term exclusively with the Complainant and its products and services owing to the international goodwill that the Complainant has developed in the ACCENTURE trademark over the years; (iv) the addition of a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) is completely without legal significance; and (v) the addition of the geographic term “Egypt” does nothing to reduce its confusing similarity with the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark, likely causing Internet users to be confused as to whether an association exists between the disputed domain name and the Complainant. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name because: (i) the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark is not a generic or descriptive term in which the Respondent might have an interest; (ii) the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant, and has not been licensed or permitted to use, the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark or any domain names incorporating the ACCENTURE trademark; (iii) on information and belief, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; (iv) even though the WhoIs information identifies the registrant organization of the disputed domain name as Accenture Egypt, it appears that the Respondent has chosen to use the Complainant’s famous ACCENTURE trademark as part of the disputed domain name and purported company name to create a direct affiliation with the Complainant and its business, including the Complainant’s business presence in Egypt, and so the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; (v) the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to advertise and promote a “supply-chain and logistics consultancy” business that competes, or has the potential to compete, directly with the Complainant’s identical service offerings in the areas of supply chain, freight, and logistics, which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; (vi) the Respondent’s activities constitute passing off, in that the Respondent is trying to pass itself off as the Complainant, which is a leader known around the world in relation to consulting and business management services pertaining to supply chain and logistics; (vii) on the website resolving from the disputed domain name the Respondent uses a logo that appears to be a modified version of the Complainant’s famous logo consisting of the greater than symbol (“>”), whereby the Respondent has simply rotated the Complainant’s logo 90 degrees and added a few additional lines, which do not take away from the overall similarity to the Complainant’s famous logo; (viii) the website resolving from the disputed domain name lists “Industries” and “Success Partners”, being some of the exact same industries and industry partners that the Complainant works in and with, respectively; and (ix) the Respondent has chosen the disputed domain name to falsely pose as the Complainant for financial gain, to trade off the reputation and goodwill associated with the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark, and to misleadingly divert Internet traffic from the Complainant’s website. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because: (i) the Respondent has demonstrated an awareness of the Complainant’s trademark and a pattern of bad faith conduct, as it has been party to a prior domain name dispute proceeding brought against it by the Complainant in relation to the domain name In a brief email to the Center on June 30, 2020, the Respondent asserted that: (i) the disputed domain name is the “same as our commercial registration license that we have obtained from the Egyptian Government”, meaning that “it was guaranteed that Accenture Egypt does not exist or is any close (sic) to another’s company name in Egypt”; (ii) it has its own registered logo, which is totally different from the Complainant’s logo; (iii) the disputed domain name was “free when we purchased it and did not belong to any other organization, which made our domain registration legal”; and (iv) as it is an Egyptian entity, “it will only be subject to the Egyptian law and all your rules with our full respect will not apply on us”. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Redaction of the Respondent’s Organization Name The Complainant has requested that the Panel redact the organization name disclosed in the WhoIs record for the disputed domain name, on the basis that the organization name is false and listing it as a party to the proceeding “would unfairly result in a negative ruling in his (sic) name”. Previous panels (e.g., Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST-12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted,WIPO Case No. D2009-1788) have redacted a respondent’s name from a decision in a proceeding under the Policy where there is reason to believe that the registrant identified in the WhoIs record is a person who exists but who is not the person who effected the registration – i.e., where there has been misuse of the identity of a third party (“identity theft”). In such a situation, including the name of the third party in the published decision of the panel would be misleading and, more importantly, unfair. It would be misleading because the third party is not the person who effected the registration. It would be unfair to the third party because including their name in the published decision would wrongly associate them with an allegation – and, if the panel upheld the complaint, a finding – of bad faith registration and use of the domain name in issue. The situation in this proceeding is not a straightforward case of identity theft. In particular, there is no evidence before the Panel that establishes the existence of a third party whose identity has been stolen. The Complainant asserts the falsity of the Respondent’s organization name “on information and belief”, but states neither the information on which its belief is based nor from where or whom it obtained that information. The Respondent asserts that its organization name is a “commercial registration license” obtained from the Egyptian government, and appears to base a claim to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on this fact, although it provides no evidence of this. The Panel is of the view that it is not necessary to redact the “organization name” of the Respondent in the situation of this case where the Respondent seems to claim entitlement to the disputed domain name on the basis of this name and there is no evidence before the Panel that it is a name stolen from a third person unrelated to either party. Accordingly, the Panel has decided not to redact the “organization name” of the Respondent. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar Once the gTLD “.com” is ignored (which is appropriate in this case), the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s registered word trademark ACCENTURE, followed by the word “Egypt”. The Complainant’s trademark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. The addition of the geographical term “Egypt” does not avoid the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name with the trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent is not a licensee of, or otherwise affiliated with, the Complainant, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its ACCENTURE trademark. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, as explained in section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), the burden of production on this element shifts to the Respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In its brief Response, the Respondent asserted: “The domain name that we have is the same as our commercial registration license that we have obtained from the Egyptian government.” The Panel interprets this as a claim to the Respondent having rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on the basis of its organization name, such that its use of the disputed domain name is a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Significantly, however, the Respondent has not provided any evidence that proves the existence of this “commercial registration license”. If such a license had been granted, the Respondent would have a record of it – and could have submitted that record into the case file as evidence. Without such evidence, the Respondent’s assertion is nothing more than an unsubstantiated claim. An unsubstantiated claim does not discharge the Respondent’s burden of production. According to the present record, therefore, the disputed domain name is not being used by the Respondent in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The disputed domain name was registered many years after the Complainant first registered its ACCENTURE trademark. The evidence on the record provided by the Complainant with respect to the use of its ACCENTURE trademark, combined with the absence of any evidence provided by the Respondent to the contrary, is sufficient to satisfy the Panel that, at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s trademark. Furthermore, the evidence on the record provided by the Complainant indicates that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website by creating confusion in the minds of the public as to an association between the website and the Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel 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 Andrew F. Christie
Sole Panelist
Date: July 27, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy