The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited, Ireland, represented by McDermott Will & Emery LLP, United States of America (“United States”).
The Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / William James, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 3, 2021. On April 6, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 6, 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 April 7, 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 April 9, 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 April 12, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 2, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 6, 2021. The Center appointed Ganna Prokhorova as the sole panelist in this matter on May 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 is an international company that provides a broad range of management consulting, technology services and outsourcing services under the name “Accenture” worldwide. Since January 2001, the Complainant has extensively used and continues to use the trademark ACCENTURE to identify its activity and promotes said mark notably through advertising campaigns, social development projects, sponsorship of sporting events, etc. The Complainant is the owner of various registrations worldwide for the trademark ACCENTURE and ACCENTURE & Design mark, and variations thereof, spread across 140 countries, including United States trademark registration number 3,091,811 registered on May 16, 2006, in relation to goods and services of classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41, and 42. The trademark ACCENTURE has been recognized as a leading global brand. For the past 19 years, the Complainant has been listed in the Fortune Global 500 and in various other top rankings by Fortune, including No. 1 on Fortune’s Most Powerful Women (2020). The Complainant operates its official website under the domain name The Complainant has been using its ACCENTURE mark since many years ago for its business and promoted said mark notably through advertising campaigns, social development projects, sponsorship of sporting events, etc. Besides, the ACCENTURE mark has been recognized and ranked in several Interbrand’s Best Global Brands Reports since 2002. The Complainant has also received numerous awards for its business, products and services provided under the ACCENTURE mark. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name The Complainant contends as follows: (1) The disputed domain name is nearly identical to the mark ACCENTURE, with the mere addition of the letter “e” before the letter “u” in the ACCENTURE mark. The disputed domain name creates a typographical misspelling, when compared to the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark. (2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is neither affiliated with nor has been licensed or permitted to use the ACCENTURE mark or any domain names incorporating the ACCENTURE mark. Besides, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s inactive holding of the disputed domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputted domain name. (3) The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Given the Complainant’s worldwide reputation, the Respondent was or should have been aware of the ACCENTURE mark prior to registering the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to commercial websites through various sponsored click-through links is an indication of using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant seeks a decision that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed, in a UDRP complaint, complainant must demonstrate that all the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied, as following: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and (ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Respondent had 20 days to submit a response in accordance with paragraph 5(a) of the Rules and failed to do so. Paragraph 5(f) of the Rules establishes that if a respondent does not respond to the Complaint, the Panel’s decision shall be based upon the Complaint. The Complainant bears the burden of proving that all these requirements are fulfilled, even if the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions. See Stanworth Development Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2007-1228. However, concerning the uncontested information provided by the Complainant, the Panel may, where relevant, accept the provided reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint as true. See, section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the consensus views captured therein. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar According to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy it should be established that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the complainant has rights. The Complainant has demonstrated ownership of its ACCENTURE trademarks in multiple jurisdictions. Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has registered trademark rights in the ACCENTURE mark. The disputed domain name As an addition of the suffixes such as “.com” being the generic Top-Level Domain (the “gTLD”) is generally disregarded under the first element, the Panel accordingly holds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark ACCENTURE. Therefore, the Panel considers the requirements of the first element of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy to be satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of establishing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It is well established that, as it is put in the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1, while the overall burden of proof in the proceedings is on the complainant, proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. Therefore, the Panel agrees with prior UDRP panels that the complainant is required to make out a prima facie case before the burden of production of evidence shifts to the respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to meet the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455. The Complainant has made a prima facie case showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, notably by: (i) demonstrating rights in the ACCENTURE trademark and providing strong evidence on its famous character which supports the fact that the Respondent has no interest in said marks; (ii) confirming that 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; (iii) underlining that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or that the Respondent has relevant trademark rights. There is also no evidence that Respondent has made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services. Although on the date of the decision the website linked to the disputed domain name is not operating, the record shows that the Consequently, the burden shifts to the Respondent to rebut the showing by providing concrete evidence that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455; Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o.,WIPO Case No. D2004-0110. The Respondent, however, has failed to file a response to prove its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. For all of the above reasons, the Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Therefore, the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy have been satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith According to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy it should be established that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists several circumstances that, without limitation, are deemed to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Those circumstances include, particularly: “(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.” The ACCENTURE mark is distinctive and famous, and 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). See Accenture Global Services Limited v. ICS Inc./PrivacyProtect.org,WIPO Case No. D2013-2098. Given the Complainant’s worldwide reputation and the ubiquitous presence of the ACCENTURE trademark on the Internet, the Panel finds it unlikely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark. In this Panel’s view, it cannot be denied that the word “accenture” carries distinction, and given the The Panel accepts that the Complainant is also correct in asserting that this activity falls within the scope of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy and that these are circumstances that provide evidence of bad faith registration and use. In light of the above facts and reasons, the Panel therefore determines that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, and that the Complainant has satisfied the condition set out in paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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 Ganna Prokhorova
above-described use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent, it is obvious that by using the disputed domain name the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website or location. Especially and as already stated earlier, taking into account that the term “accenture” is not a dictionary term, but rather an original creation of the Complainant, it is not likely that the Respondent’s choice of words in the disputed domain name was random. Therefore, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent’s awareness amounts to opportunistic bad faith registration and use. See Deutsche Bank AG v. Diego-Arturo Bruckner,WIPO Case No. D2000-0277, Caesars World, Inc. v. Forum LLC,WIPO Case No. D2005-0517.
Sole Panelist
Date: May 28, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy