The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited, Ireland, represented by McDermott Will & Emery LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Thanh Minh Dinh, Nigeria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 8, 2021. On June 8, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On June 8, 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 June 9, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. On June 9, 2021, and June 10, 2021, the Respondent sent informal communications to the Center asking for further information and for means to resolve this matter. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 12, 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 June 21, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 11, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any further communication. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 19, 2021. The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on July 29, 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 business that provides a broad range of services and solutions in strategy, consulting, digital, technology, and operations under the mark ACCENTURE. Since January 2001, the Complainant has extensively used and continues to use the trademark ACCENTURE in connection with various services and specialties, including management consulting and business process services, which comprises various aspects of business operations such as supply chain and logistics services, as well as technology services and outsourcing services, etc. The Complainant has offices and operations in more than 200 cities in 51 countries. The Complainant owns numerous registrations for its ACCENTURE trademark in various jurisdictions, including, among others: - ACCENTURE, United States trademark registration No. 3,091,811, registered on May 16, 2006; and Moreover, the Complainant owns and operates the website resolving from the domain name The Disputed Domain Name was registered on May 4, 2021. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website advertising a “cryptocurrency investment platform” and other financial services that are related to, or have the potential to compete with, Complainant’s financial services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows: Identical or confusingly similar The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name contains Complainant’s entire ACCENTURE trademark, with the addition of the descriptive term “exchange” (or, “xchange,” as the Respondent is borrowing the first letter “e” from the last “e” in the ACCENTURE mark), which serves to create a typo-squatted domain name. Thus, the Complainant states that Internet users are very likely to be confused as to whether an association exists between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant or the Complainant’s financial services business. Rights or legitimate interest The Complainant alleges that the Respondent is neither affiliated with, nor has it been licensed or permitted to use the Complainant’s trademarks or any domain names incorporating the ACCENTURE trademark. The Complainant further states that the Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name via a privacy proxy service in order to mask its identity. But, according to the registrant information provided by the Center, the Respondent is identified as “Thanh Minh Dinh”. Therefore, 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 the Complainant’s trademark. Finally, the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. Registration and use in bad faith The Complaint asserts that the Respondent had constructive notice that the ACCENTURE trademark was a registered trademark. Moreover, the Respondent was or should have been aware of the ACCENTURE trademarks long prior to registering the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to mislead Internet users who are searching for the Complainant, but instead reach the Respondent’s Disputed Domain Name, where the Respondent is holding itself out as the Complainant and/or holds itself out as offering, competing with, or have the potential to compete with, the Complainant’s goods and services. Finally, the Complainant claims that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website at the Disputed Domain Name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. Instead, it only replied an informal communication stating he did not understand the present dispute. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which the Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Disputed Domain Name at issue in this case: (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 have been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Based on the evidence submitted, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainants ACCENTURE trademark. The Disputed Domain Name contains the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark in its entirety. The Disputed Domain Name only differs from the Complainant’s trademark with the addition of the term “xchange”. Thus, the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the Disputed Domain Name. In addition, the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not change this finding, since the gTLD is generally disregarded in such an assessment of confusingly similarity. Therefore, this Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the first requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances, any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name: (i) before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the Respondents use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the 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 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 domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service at issue. There is no evidence of the existence of any of those rights or legitimate interests. The Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the Disputed Domain Name or to use the ACCENTURE trademark in the Disputed Domain Name. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. The use of the confusingly similar Disputed Domain Name to resolve to a website appearing to offer competing goods and services does not constitute a bona fide offering in these circumstances, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any rights with respect to the Disputed Domain Name. Moreover, the Respondent had the opportunity to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests, but did not reply to the Complainants contentions. As such, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, unrebutted by the Respondent, and has satisfied the second requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent registered and subsequently used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The Disputed Domain Name was registered in 2021, while the Complainants ACCENTURE trademark registration was registered since the year 2004. This is to say, seventeen years before the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name In light of this, the Respondent likely had knowledge of the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark when it registered the Disputed Domain Name. The circumstances in the case before the Panel indicates that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the Disputed Domain Name and it has intentionally created a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks in order to attract Internet users for his own commercial gain. Furthermore, the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use any of its trademarks or to register the Disputed Domain Name incorporating its ACCENTURE trademark. The Respondent has not denied the Complainant’s assertions. The Panel is of the view that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s trademark and prior rights. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy states: “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.” In the case at hand, the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark, the use of the Disputed Domain Name for financial services in connection with the ACCENTURE trademark, the absence of any documented rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the Disputed Domain Name, and its failure to respond to the Complaint, affirm a finding of bad faith. Due to this conduct, it is obvious that the Respondent intentionally created a likelihood confusion with the Complainant’s trademark and the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves in order to attract Internet users for its own commercial gain, as set out in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Furthermore, the website resolving from the Disputed Domain Name includes a registration page seeking sensitive data, including account numbers and security questions/answers, which may be used for phishing purposes. Section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that use of a domain name for per se illegitimate activity, such as phishing, is manifestly considered evidence of bad faith. Therefore, taking all circumstances into account and for all the above reasons, the Panel concludes that there is bad faith in the registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name. 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 Pablo A. Palazzi
- ACCENTURE >, United States trademark registration No. 2,665,373, registered on December 24, 2002.
Sole Panelist
Date: August 12, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy