The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited, Ireland, represented by McDermott Will & Emery LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States of America / David Teyssou, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 27, 2021. On January 27, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 28, 2021, 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 February 2, 2021 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 February 4, 2021. 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 February 5, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 25, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 26, 2021. The Center appointed Beatrice Onica Jarka as the sole panelist in this matter on March 10, 2021. 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 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, for management consulting, technology services and outsourcing services. Those registrations include, for example, the United States trademark number 3,091,811 for the word mark ACCENTURE, registered on May 16, 2006 in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41, and 42 In addition the Complainant incorporated a series of United States trademark registrations for the ACCENTURE mark and ACCENTURE & Design mark, and variations thereof, as - ACCENTURE for various goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42 under registration number 2,665,373 from December 24, 2002. - ACCENTURE for various goods in Classes 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24 and 28 under registration number 3,340,780 from November 20, 2007. - ACCENTURE for various goods in Classes 18, 25 and 28 under registration number 2,884,125 from September 14, 2004. The Complainant has offices and operations in more than 200 cities in 51 countries. The Complainant has developed substantial goodwill in its ACCENTURE name and its ACCENTURE Marks, as well as its official domain name, The Complainant has relied on the Internet as a forum to promote and disseminate information regarding the various offerings under the ACCENTURE Marks including, but not limited to, management consulting, technology services, outsourcing services and software solutions. The ACCENTURE Marks have been advertised in connection with various media and have been written about in the press, the Complainant spending in 2018 up to $67 million in advertising. The ACCENTURE mark has been recognized by Kantar Millward Brown, a leading market research and brand valuation company, in its annual BrandZ – Top 100 Brand Rankings since 2006 when it was ranked 58th. In 2020, the ACCENTURE brand ranked 21st, its highest Brandz ranking. The Respondent is an individual named David Teyssou, who was previously masked by a privacy service, “Registration Private/Domains by Proxy, LLC”. The Respondent registered on October 22, 2020 the disputed domain name, which resolves to a page displaying an Internet browser error message stating, “[t]his site can’t be reached”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that: - the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to the ACCENTURE marks, as the only difference is the addition of a hyphen and the descriptive term “holdings” to the end of the mark. - the ACCENTURE mark is distinctive and famous, as it consists of a coined term and, as such, should be afforded a wide scope of protection, particularly in view of the ubiquitous nature of the brand (as demonstrated by the heavy advertising presence worldwide). - the addition of a gTLD to the disputed domain name is “completely without legal significance”. - adding random characters or a descriptive term to a trademark in a domain name fails to negate confusing similarity. - the disputed domain name is virtually identical to and is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark, as well as its - the Respondent has no legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. - the Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark is not a generic or descriptive term in which the Respondent might have an interest. - Complainant’s ACCENTURE marks are globally famous and have acquired secondary meaning through the Complainant’s substantial, continuous, and exclusive use of the marks in connection with Complainant’s goods and services. - the Respondent is neither affiliated with, nor has it been licensed or permitted to use Complainant’s ACCENTURE Marks or any domain names incorporating the ACCENTURE Marks. - upon information and belief, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor was it known as such prior to the date on which the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to trade on the value of Complainant’s famous trademark. - the Respondent is not making a legitimate, noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain name, as it resolves to a page displaying an Internet browser error message stating, “[t]his site can’t be reached”. The Complainant submits that this is inactive holding of the disputed domain name. - the Respondent had constructive notice that the ACCENTURE mark was a registered trademark in the United States and many other jurisdictions worldwide. - the Respondent has held the disputed domain name for over three months, and has not used the domain for any legitimate purpose. - it is implausible for the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name other than to trade off the reputation and goodwill of Complainant’s ACCENTURE Marks. - furthermore, the Respondent identity has been obscured via a privacy service. - the Respondent’s failure to use the disputed domain name for a legitimate purpose is evidence of bad faith registration and use. B. Respondent Although properly summoned, the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 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 a hyphen and of the term “holdings”. It is the opinion of this Panel that the addition of these elements does not prevent the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. For all the reasons above, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ACCENTURE marks and that the Complainant has established the first element of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests In order to establish the second element of the Policy, the Complainant has to show that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent, according to WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1. In this proceeding, this Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and such showing has not been rebutted by the Respondent, as it did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as: - the Respondent is neither affiliated with, nor has it been licensed or permitted to use Complainant’s ACCENTURE Marks or any domain names incorporating the ACCENTURE Marks. - the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor was it known as such prior to the date on which the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to trade on the value of Complainant’s famous trademark. Moreover, according to the Complainant, the Respondent is not making a legitimate, noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain name, as it resolves to a page displaying an Internet browser error message stating, “[t]his site can’t be reached”. As noted above, the contentions of the Complainant have not been rebutted by the Respondent and the Panel agrees with the Complainant that the incorporation and use of a known trademark in a domain name cannot be considered as bona fide. Therefore, in the opinion of this Panel, the Complainant has fully demonstrated that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and consequently, the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant submits various factors which this Panel considers relevant evidence for a finding of bad faith in registering and using the disputed domain name. In this sense, the Complainant asserts that the trademarks ACCENTURE marks are globally famous and have acquired secondary meaning through Complainant’s substantial, continuous, and exclusive use of the marks in connection with the Complainant’s goods and services and that the Respondent had constructive notice that the ACCENTURE mark was a registered trademark in the United States and many other jurisdictions worldwide. This Panel tends to agree with the Complainant that it is implausible for the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name other than to trade off the reputation and goodwill of Complainant’s ACCENTURE Marks. Moreover, this Panel finds that the Respondent has held the disputed domain name for over three months, and has not used the domain name for any legitimate purpose. Such passive holding of the disputed domain name indicates that the disputed domain name is used in bad faith, as the disputed domain name is not actively used so that there is no real and substantial offer of goods and/or services on the website associated with the disputed domain name. Passive holding does not preclude a finding of bad faith under WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Last, but not least, the Respondent identity has been obscured via a privacy service, which, corroborated with the other factors, further suggests bad faith in registration and use of the disputed domain name (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.6). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and used in bad faith the disputed domain name and therefore, the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is established. 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 Beatrice Onica Jarka
Sole Panelist
Date: March 22, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy