The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited, Ireland, represented by McDermott Will & Emery LLP, United States of America (“United States”).
The Respondent is Ranjan M, India. 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 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 February 12, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 4, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 8, 2021. The Center appointed Johan Sjöbeck as the sole panelist in this matter on March 11, 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 has submitted evidence that it is the owner of a large number of trademark registrations in numerous countries, including the following: ACCENTURE, United States trademark registration with registration number 3,091,811 and registration date May 16, 2006 for goods and services in class 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42. ACCENTURE, United States trademark registration with registration number 2,665,373 and registration date December 24, 2002 for goods and services in class 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42. ACCENTURE, United States trademark registration with registration number 3,340,780 and registration date November 20, 2007 for goods and services in class 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24 and 28. ACCENTURE, United States trademark registration with registration number 2,884,125 and registration date September 14, 2004 for goods and services in class18, 25 and 28. ACCENTURE & Design, United States trademark registration with registration number 3,862,419 and registration date October 19, 2010 for goods and services in class 35 and 36. The disputed domain name Since January 1, 2001, the Complainant has been using the trademark ACCENTURE in connection with various services, including management consulting, technology services and outsourcing services. The Complainant has offices and operations in more than 200 cities in 51 countries. The Complainant owns registrations for the ACCENTURE trademark and ACCENTURE & Design trademark in over 140 countries. The Complainant owns more than 1,000 registrations for the trademarks ACCENTURE, ACCENTURE & Design and many other trademarks incorporating the ACCENTURE brand for a variety of products and services including, but not limited to, its management consulting, technology services and outsourcing services. The Complainant owns well over 15 trademark applications and registrations for ACCENTURE in India, the country in which it appears that the Respondent is located. The first trademark registration in India for the ACCENTURE mark dates back to 2001 and covers computer software for the financial, manufacturing, and sale functions of a business, and for managing service and support functions of a business. The Complainant is also incorporated in India as Accenture India and operates its various consulting and technology services from 32 different locations in the country. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ACCENTURE trademark. The only difference is the addition of the generic entity designation “inc” and a hyphen preceding the Complainant’s trademark. According to the WhoIs record, the disputed domain name was registered on December 27, 2020, which is more than 19 years after Complainant first registered its ACCENTURE trademark in the United States. The Complainant’s trademark ACCENTURE is distinctive and famous. See Accenture Global Services Limited v. ICS Inc./PrivacyProtect.org,WIPO Case No. D2013-2098. The trademark 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. Adding random characters or a descriptive term to a trademark in a domain name fails to negate confusing similarity. The disputed domain name is comprised of the Complainant’s trademark ACCENTURE in whole and the addition of the preceding hyphen and generic “inc” does nothing to reduce the disputed domain name’s confusing similarity with the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark. Internet users are very likely to be confused as to whether an association exists between the disputed domain name and the Complainant. The Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark is not a generic or descriptive term in which the Respondent might have an interest. The Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark is globally famous and has acquired secondary meaning through the Complainant’s substantial, continuous, and exclusive use of the trademark in connection with the Complainant’s goods and services. The Respondent is neither affiliated with, nor has it been licensed or permitted to use the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark or any domain names incorporating the ACCENTURE trademark. The Respondent, identified as “Ranjan M.”, is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor was the Respondent known as such prior to the date on which the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. The Respondent has chosen to use the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark as a domain name to create a direct affiliation with the Complainant and its business. Accordingly, the Respondent is not making a legitimate, noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for any legitimate purpose at this time. Instead, the disputed domain name redirects to the Complainant’s own website for its India business at the address “www.accenture.com/in-en”. Panels have found that unauthorized redirection to a complainant’s website does not serve as evidence of rights or legitimate interests. See Carrefour v. WhoisGuard, Inc., WhoisGuard Protected / Robert Jurek, Katrin Kafut, Purchasing clerk, Starship Tapes & Records,WIPO Case No. D2017-2533. Given the Complainant’s worldwide reputation and the ubiquitous presence of the ACCENTURE trademarks on the Internet, the Respondent was or should have been aware of the ACCENTURE trademarks prior to registering the disputed domain name. It is highly unlikely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name independently for its own purposes. A high degree of renown attaches to the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark as a result of its extensive use and promotion of the trademark in relation to its world-renowned services and solutions in strategy, consulting, digital, technology and operations, such that it is implausible for the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name other than to trade off the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark, especially given the redirection of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s own official website. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in 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 is, according to the submitted evidence, the owner of the registered trademark ACCENTURE. The disputed domain name incorporates the ACCENTURE trademark in its entirety with the addition of a hyphen and the element “inc”, which is a common abbreviation of the term “incorporation”. In the present case, the Complainant’s trademark is readily recognizable in the disputed domain name and the addition of the element “inc” together with a hyphen does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element test. It is standard practice to disregard the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) under the confusingly similar test. Having the above in mind, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark ACCENTURE and that the Complainant has proven the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant must show that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name. The Respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by demonstrating in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy any of the following: (i) that the Respondent uses or has made preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to the dispute; or (ii) that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if the Respondent has not acquired any trademark rights; or (iii) that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark. The Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark registration predates the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name. The nature of the disputed domain name carries a high risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.5.1. The Complainant has not licensed, approved or in any way consented to the Respondent’s registration and use of the trademark in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence in the case file indicating that the Respondent has used or made any preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to the dispute. On the contrary, the Complainant has submitted evidence demonstrating that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to the Complainant’s own official website in India, “www.accenture.com/in-en”. Although given the opportunity, the Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie case. It has not submitted any evidence indicating that the Respondent is the owner of any trademark or that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Furthermore, there is no evidence indicating that the Respondent intends to make a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark. The Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances, which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise, any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Thus, there is no evidence in the case that refutes the Complainant’s submissions, and the Panel concludes that the Complainant has also proven the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, evidence of bad faith registration and use include without limitation: (i) circumstances indicating the disputed domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registration to the owner of a trademark or to a competitor of the trademark owner, for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or (ii) circumstances indicating that the disputed domain name was registered in order to prevent the owner of a trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding disputed domain name, provided there is a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) circumstances indicating that the disputed domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) circumstances indicating that the disputed domain name has intentionally been used in an attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on that website or location. As mentioned above, the Complainant’s trademark registration for ACCENTURE predates the registration of the disputed domain name. In addition, the Panel notes that the Complainant’s trademark is considered well known according to previous UDRP decisions cited by the Complainant. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel agrees with the Complainant that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s trademark and business in mind. The claim that the Respondent specifically targeted the Complainant is demonstrated by the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name. The evidence in the case record establishes that the Respondent has redirected the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s own official Indian website. Thus, it is clear that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s trademark and business in mind. The Respondent’s failure to use the disputed domain name for any purpose but to redirect to Internet users to the Complainant’s website is evidence of bad faith registration and use. The circumstances in the case indicate that the disputed domain name has intentionally been used in an attempted to attract, most likely for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on that website or location. Internet users may be misled into believing that the disputed domain name belongs to or is in some way associated with or provided by the Complainant. There is no evidence in the case file that refutes the Complainant’s submissions. The Panel concludes that the Complainant has proved the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy and that the disputed domain name has been registered and 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 Johan Sjöbeck
Sole Panelist
Date: March 23, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy