The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited, Ireland, represented by McDermott Will & Emery LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is Steffen Bartsch/crypto earn, 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 February 7, 2021. On February 18, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 18, 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 26, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 18, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 19, 2021. The Center appointed Angelica Lodigiani as the sole panelist in this matter on April 14, 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 operates in 51 countries worldwide, providing a broad range of services and solutions in the strategy, consulting, financial, digital, technology and operation fields, under the trademark ACCENTURE. The Complainant is using its ACCENTURE trademark since 2001. The Complainant owns over 1,000 registrations for the trademarks ACCENTURE and ACCENTURE & Design, in more than 140 countries worldwide. Among these, the Complainant is the owner of United States trademark registration No. 3,091,811, filed on October 26, 2000 and registered on May 16, 2006, for various goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41, and 42. The Complainant has invested substantial amounts in the promotion of its ACCENTURE trademarks, which have been included among the “Best Global Brands” in several publications, since 2002. The Complainant has also sponsored and collaborated with various groups on renowned cultural initiatives and sport events, such as the Louvre Museum, and the RBS 6 Nations Rugby Championship, to name only a few. The disputed domain name was registered on October 31, 2020. At the time of the filing of the Complaint, it led to a website offering investment services. After becoming aware of this UDRP proceeding, the Respondent’s website changed to an inactive webpage. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ACCENTURE trademark. In the case at issue, the trademark ACCENTURE is the most distinctive element of the disputed domain name. The term “investment” creates a direct reference to the Complainant’s financial services business and therefore increases the potential confusion with the Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant, nor has it been licensed or permitted to use the Complainant’s trademark on any domain name. To the best of the Complainant’s knowledge and belief, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Complainant maintains that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a valid purpose. At the time of the filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name led to a website offering competing goods and services. Moreover, the website displayed the Complainant’s registered trademark, listed the Complainant’s CEO as the Respondent’s CEO and consultant, listed legitimate addresses of the Complainant’s in Ireland as those of the Respondent, displayed multiple photographs of the Complainant’s own office spaces, and linked a falsified company registration document purporting to be from the United Kingdom Companies House. The Respondent was therefore using the disputed domain name to hold itself out under the famous ACCENTURE trademark. Such kind of use does not amount to a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. When the Respondent became aware of this UDRP proceeding, the Respondent’s website changed to a page displaying an error message. Inactive holding of a domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. In respect of the registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the Complainant maintains that 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 marks long before the registration of the disputed domain name. The Respondent was using the disputed domain to impersonate the Complainant and to redirect Internet users to its website promoting competing services. Furthermore, the Respondent’s current passive holding of the disputed domain name cannot prevent a finding of bad faith, since the disputed domain name incorporates a well-known registered trademark without a legitimate purpose. Considering the reputation of the ACCENTURE trademark and the Complainant’s services related to the financial field, there is no reason for the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name other than to trade off the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s trademark. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant owns various registrations for the trademark ACCENTURE. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, followed by a hyphen and the word “investment”. It is generally recognized that “where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element”. See section 1.8 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). The trademark ACCENTURE is fully recognizable within the disputed domain name. The hyphen lacks distinctive character and the word “investment” is descriptive and refers to part of the Complainant’s activity. Therefore, in the Panel’s view, the addition of these elements cannot prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that the first condition under the Policy is met. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out the following circumstances which, without limitation, if found by the panel, shall demonstrate that the respondent has rights to, or legitimate interests in, a disputed domain name, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy: (i) before any notice to [the respondent] of the dispute, [the respondent’s] use of, or demonstrable 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; or (ii) [the respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) [has] been commonly known by the [disputed] domain name, even if [the respondent has] acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) [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 or service mark at issue. The Complainant states that the Respondent is neither affiliated with, nor has it been licensed or permitted to use, the Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark or any domain names incorporating the ACCENTURE mark. Furthermore, the Complainant maintains that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. At the time of the filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a webpage containing several references to the Complainant as mentioned above. Furthermore, in an attempt to gain credibility, the website displayed a false company registration certificate allegedly from the United Kingdom Companies House. Therefore, the Respondent has engaged in a dishonest impersonation of the Complainant to mislead Internet users as to the origin of the disputed domain name and connected website and attract them to the Respondent’s website to solicit purported investments in encrypted currencies. The Respondent is passing off its services as those of the Complainant. Such use does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services, or to a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, within the meaning of paragraphs 4(c)(i) and (iii) of the Policy. After becoming aware of the Complaint, the Respondent’s website changed to a page displaying an error message. Prior UDRP panels have found that the inactive holding of a disputed domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name. For all circumstances highlighted above and in the absence of contrary arguments by the Respondent, the Panel is satisfied that the second requirement under the Policy is met. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel is convinced that the Respondent registered and has been using the disputed domain name in bad faith for a number of reasons. First, in line with other previous decisions, the Panel finds that the Complainant and its trademarks are well known. Previous UDRP panels have found that the Complainant’s trademark ACCENTURE enjoys wide reputation (see, among others, Accenture Global Services Limited v. Yongkun Wang, W.KING / 王永坤,WIPO Case No. D2017-2324; Accenture Global Services Limited v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot / Lisa Wong,WIPO Case No. D2020-1292; and Accenture Global Services Limited v. Mark Henry,WIPO Case No. D2020-1691). Furthermore, the Complainant’s trademark is a coined word, which the Respondent cannot have selected to register as part of its disputed domain name by mere coincidence. Lastly, the Respondent has been using the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant for an illegitimate commercial gain. The fact that after becoming aware of this UDRP proceeding, the Respondent changed its website to an inactive webpage cannot prevent a finding of bad faith, especially in a case like the one at issue, where the Complainant and its ACCENTURE trademark enjoy wide reputation and where the disputed domain name was previously used for an unlawful purpose. Therefore, the Respondent is capitalizing on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant and is passing off its services as those of the Complainant in order to generate an undue profit from the misdirected users. In light of the foregoing, the Panel is satisfied that also the third and last condition under the Policy is met. 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 Angelica Lodigiani
Sole Panelist
Date: April 26, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy