The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited, Ireland, represented by McDermott Will & Emery LLP, United States of America (“United States” or “US”).
The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1247628564, Canada / Florian Dejoye, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 28, 2020. On August 31, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 1, 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 September 15, 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 September 17, 2020. The Registrar also indicated that the language of the Registration Agreement was French. The Complaint was filed in English. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 15 2020, inviting the Complainant to provide sufficient evidence of an agreement between the Parties for English to be the language of proceeding, a Complaint translated into French, or a request for English to be the language of proceedings. The Complainant filed a request for English to be the language of proceedings on September 17, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any arguments. 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 in both English and French, and the proceedings commenced on September 25, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 15, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 16, 2020. The Center appointed Emre Kerim Yardimci as the sole panelist in this matter on October 22, 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 is an international business that provides a broad range of services and solutions in strategy, consulting, digital, technology and operations under the trademark ACCENTURE. The Complainant has been using the trademark ACCENTURE continuously since early 2000 and holds a considerable number of trade and service marks registrations in US and in other jurisdictions in addition to International registrations under the Madrid Protocol (see International trade mark registration No. 828118 for ACCENTURE and design registered on February 24, 2004 in classes 9, 16, 18, 25, 28, 35, 36, 37, 41, 42, and 45) which has proceeded to registration in several countries including France. The Complainant has been providing information regarding itself and its services under the domain name The disputed domain name was created on July 5, 2020. According to the current record, the Respondent is a physical person of French origin domiciled in Paris. The disputed domain name does not resolve to any active website and therefore it is passively held. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark ACCENTURE, as it incorporates the trademark in its entirety and that the addition of the word “eservices” and the abbreviation “be” for Belgium reinforces the association between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant considers that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, mainly because the Complainant has neither licensed nor otherwise authorized the Respondent to use its marks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the trademark ACCENTURE and the Respondent does not appear to be known by the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant claims that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name with the aim to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark and for the purpose of disrupting the Complainant’s business and targeting the Complainant’s trademark. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Effect of the Default Paragraph 14(b) of the Rules provides that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, a panel shall draw such inferences as it considers appropriate from a failure of a party to comply with a provision or requirement of the Rules. As there are no exceptional circumstances for the failure of the Respondent to submit a formal Response, the Panel infers that the Respondent does not deny the facts asserted and contentions made by the Complainant. Therefore, asserted facts that are not unreasonable will be taken as true and the Respondent will be subject to the inferences that flow naturally from the information provided by the Complainant. Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0441. 6.2. Language of the Proceeding Pursuant to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, or specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. Paragraph 11(a) allows the Panel to determine the language of the proceeding having regard to all the circumstances. In particular, it is established practice to take paragraphs 10(b) and (c) of the Rules into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding. The Registrar has confirmed that the language of the registration agreement is French. The Complaint was filed in English and the Complainant has requested English to be the language of the proceeding on the grounds that: - The Complainant cannot communicate in French and the translation would result in unwarranted delay and incur considerable expenses; - The disputed domain name is composed of English terms; - As the disputed domain name is not resolving to any active website, there is no indication that the Respondent could only communicate in French. In view of the above, the Complainant contends that the Respondent must necessarily be familiar with the English language. Paragraphs 10(a) and (b) of the Rules vest the panel with authority to conduct the proceedings in a manner it considers appropriate while also ensuring both that the parties are treated equality and each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case. The Panel is also mindful of the need to ensure the proceeding is conducted in a timely and cost-effective manner. The Respondent did not comment on the language or express any interest in participating in the proceeding. Therefore, the Panel considers that requiring the Complainant to translate the Complaint and its annexes into French, would lead to undue burdens being placed on the Complainant and undue delay to the proceeding, which is supposed to be an inexpensive and expeditious avenue for resolving domain name disputes. Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11 of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English. 6.3. Substantive Issues A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark certificate belong to its respective owner. As indicated above, “accenture” is the distinctive part of the Complainant’s trade name and the Complainant holds multiple trademark registrations for ACCENTURE in various jurisdictions including France, where the Respondent is domiciled. The disputed domain name In line with UDRP precedents, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com" is typically disregarded under the confusing similarity test. Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The onus is on the Complainant to make out at least a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and it is then for the Respondent to rebut this case. The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submissions that the Respondent does not appear to be known by the disputed domain name, has not used or made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, and has no consent from the Complainant to use its trademark. The Respondent has not filed a Response. The Complainant has made out its prima facie case under this element of the Policy and the Respondent has failed to rebut it. Accordingly, the Complainant succeeds in relation to the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant’s trademark ACCENTURE is a well-known mark throughout Europe and the world and achieved to well-known trademark status prior to the registration by the Respondent of the disputed domain name. The Panel is of the view that at the time the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, the Respondent is more than likely to have been well aware of the ACCENTURE trademark. As decided in many previous UDRP decisions, the incorporation of a well-known trademark into a domain name by a registrant having no plausible explanation for doing so may be, in and of itself, an indication of bad faith (Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0163; General Electric Company v. CPIC NET and Hussain Syed,WIPO Case No. D2001-0087; Microsoft Corporation v. Montrose Corporation,WIPO Case No. D2000-1568). Furthermore, the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name but has not put it to any use. The Respondent is holding the disputed domain name passively. It has long been held in UDRP decisions that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a well-known trademark, without obvious legitimate use, does not necessarily prevent a finding of bad faith in line with the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy (Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003). In addition, the Panel observed that the Respondent used a privacy shield. While the Respondent’s use of a privacy service will not in itself constitute bad faith under the Policy, the Panel may still take it into account and draw adverse inferences. The use of the privacy shield in this case together with other elements gives rise to the finding that the privacy shield was used to mask the identity of the true registrant and to obstruct proceedings commenced under the Policy. In the view of the all above, the Panel is persuaded that the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitute bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. Therefore, in the view of cumulative circumstances, the Panel finds that the requirement of registration and use in bad faith is satisfied, according to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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 Emre Kerim Yardimci
Sole Panelist
Date: November 12, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy