The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited, Ireland, represented by McDermott Will & Emery LLP, United States of America (“United States”).
The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1249932273, Canada / Алексей Фролов, Russian Federation.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 1, 2021. On July 1, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On July 1, 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 July 6, 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 July 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 July 19, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 8, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 30, 2021.
The Center appointed Mariya Koval as the sole panelist in this matter on September 1, 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 BackgroundThe Complainant was founded in 2001, and is a multinational professional services company that specializes in IT services and consulting. The Complainant has a significant international presence; it now has 200 branch offices in 50 countries with 537,000 employees worldwide. Since January 2001, the Complainant has extensively used and continues to use the trademark ACCENTURE (the “ACCENTURE Trademark”) 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. The ACCENTURE Trademark has been recognized by many reputable brand valuation companies in the industry as a leading global brand; for the past 19 years it has been listed in the Fortune Global 500, which ranks the world’s largest companies.
The Complainant is the owner of a large ACCENTURE Trademark registrations portfolio throughout the world, including Russian Federation, among which are:
- International Trademark Registration No. 828118, registered on February 24, 2004, in respect of goods and services in classes 9, 16, 18, 25, 28, 35, 36, 37, 41, 42 and 45;
- United States Trademark Registration No. 2,665,373 registered on December 24, 2002, in respect of goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42;
- United States Trademark Registration No. 2,884,125 registered on September 14, 2004, in respect of goods in classes 18, 25 and 28;
- United States Trademark Registration No. 3,340,780 registered on November 20, 2007, in respect of goods in classes 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24 and 28.
The Complainant has a significant online presence, it operates different domain names reflecting its ACCENTURE Trademark for sale and promotion of its goods and services, inter alia:
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on April 9, 2021. At the date of this Decision, the Disputed Domain Name does not resolve to any active website.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant contends that on January 1, 2001 it began using the ACCENTURE Trademark in connection with various services, including management consulting, technology services and outsourcing services, having developed substantial goodwill in its company name, its Trademark, as well as its official domain name
The Complainant asserts that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its Trademark in view of the Disputed Domain Name is identical in part and the only difference is the descriptive term “contact”. Adding random characters or a descriptive term to the Trademark in the Disputed Domain Name fails to negate confusing similarity, especially when the descriptive term suggests an affiliation with the Complainant, as the word “contact” in this case appears to refer to an email address or website from which official correspondence or contact from the Complainant may originate.
The Complainant claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name in view of the following:
- 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 has failed to use or to make any developments or “demonstrable preparations” to use the Disputed Domain Name to provide a bona fide offering of goods and services;
- the Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name in relation to the email address […]@accenturecontact.org, which has been used to impersonate an employee and HR hiring manager of the Complainant to perpetuate a financial fraud/phishing scam. Specifically, as shown in the Annex X to the Complaint, the Respondent solicited an individual with an offer of employment and entered into email correspondence with a job-seeking individual in which the Respondent fraudulently suggested he or she was a representative of the Complainant, and attempted to collect personal information from the individual under the guise that the Respondent was hiring them for a job with the Complainant;
- the Respondent is not making a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, and it appears that the Respondent has chosen the Disputed Domain Name to trade off the reputation and goodwill associated with the Complainant’s ACCENTURE Trademark, to cause confusion amongst Internet users and job seekers in order to perpetuate an employment fraud/phishing scam, and to prevent the Complainant from owning the Disputed Domain Name.
The Complainant further alleges that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith since, given the Complainant’s worldwide reputation and the ubiquitous presence of the ACCENTURE Trademark on the Internet, the Respondent was or should have been aware of the ACCENTURE Trademark long before to registering the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent has not used the Disputed Domain Name for any legitimate purpose.
Furthermore, the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name for a corresponding email address to create a false association with the Complainant and to perpetuate a phishing scam under the guise of an offer of employment with the Complainant constitutes bad faith pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv). The Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith to intentionally mislead and confuse the public into believing that the Respondent is associated or affiliated with the Complainant for misleading or fraudulent purposes. Taking into account the well-known status of the Complainant’s ACCENTURE Trademark and the Complainant’s official domain name
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsUnder paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the complainant to succeed must satisfy the panel that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Panel accepts that the Complainant demonstrated that it has rights in the ACCCCENTURE Trademark in view of a large number of registrations in different jurisdictions, including the Russian Federation, and long use of its ACCENTURE Trademark.
The Disputed Domain Name completely reproduces the Complainant’s ACCENTURE Trademark in combination with the word “contact” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. According to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8, 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. In this case, the addition of the term “contact” to the ACCENTURE Trademark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.
Also, in accordance with WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11, the applicable gTLD in a domain name (e.g., “.com”, “.club”, “.nyc”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test.
Previous UDRP panels have recognized that incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered mark; see bridport & cie S.A v. Privatewhois.net, Private Whois bridportadvisory.com,WIPO Case No. D2011-2262.
In view of the above, the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark and therefore, the Complainant has satisfied the first element of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsThe Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no affiliation with or permission from the Complainant to use the Complainant’s ACCENTURE Trademark or any domain names incorporating the ACCENTURE Trademark, the Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name in relation to the email address […]@accenturecontact.org, which has been used to impersonate an employee and HR hiring manager of the Complainant to perpetuate a financial fraud/phishing scam.
In accordance with section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 while the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the Complainant, the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. If such prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. If the Respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the Complainant is generally deemed to have satisfied the second element. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case. Previous UDRP panels have held that it is sufficient for the Complainant to prove a prima facie case that the Respondent does not hold rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, see e.g. Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455.
There is no evidence that the Respondent appears to own any ACCENTURE Trademark, nor is the Respondent commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. Furthermore, the Panel concludes that in view of the ACCENTURE Trademark is highly distinctive and famous, it is highly unlikely that anybody, especially natural person, could legitimately adopt the Disputed Domain Name for commercial use other than for an intent to create confusion with the Complainant.
Having considered the evidence provided by the Complainant (Annex X to the Complaint), the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and used for the purpose of misleading Internet users, namely for creating the email address […]@accenturecontact.org, from which the Respondent was sending fraudulent emails to a job-seeking person regarding the employment offer on behalf of the Complainant and attempted to collect personal information from this person. Such Respondent’s behavior demonstrates that the Disputed Domain Name was not being used by the Respondent in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial purpose. According to the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1, Panels have categorically held that use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) cannot confer rights or legitimate interests to a respondent.
Also, taking into consideration the long use of the Complainant’s Trademark, it is impossible to assume that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant's Trademark at the time of registration of the Disputed Domain Name.
In view of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name and that the Complainant succeeds under the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithParagraph 4(b) of the Policy lists four non-exhaustive criteria for the Complainant to show bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name.
The Panel comes to the conclusion that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith in view of the following. The Complainant’s services under the ACCENTURE Trademark are well-known throughout the world. The Disputed Domain Name was registered long after the Complainant registered its Trademark. The Disputed Domain Name completely incorporates not only the Complainant’s ACCENTURE Trademark, but also the part of the Complainant’s company name, therefore the Panel finds that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant, its ACCENTURE Trademark and its business when he registered the Disputed Domain Name.
The Respondent obviously chose to register the Disputed Domain Name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ACCENTURE Trademark, with the intention to benefit from the Complainant’s reputation.
The Panel also finds that the Respondent was using the Disputed Domain Name for fraudulent scheme, namely for sending fraudulent and misleading emails that demonstrates clear bad faith use. Moreover, it is obvious that the Respondent registered and was using the Disputed Domain Name with the purpose to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s ACCENTURE Trademark and company name as to the source, sponsorship or affiliation.
At the time of initial filing of the Complaint the Respondent used a privacy service. In accordance with the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.6, where a respondent employs a privacy or proxy service merely to avoid being notified of a UDRP proceeding filed against it, panels tend to find that this supports an inference of bad faith.
The Panel also concludes that the addition of the term “contact” to the ACCENTURE Trademark does not change an impression of strong association of the Disputed Domain Name with the Complainant’s Trademark. Previous UDRP panels have concluded that in appropriate circumstances, bad faith is established where the complainant’s trademark has been well-known or in wide use at the time of registering a domain name, see, e.g., Chanel, Inc. v. EstcoEnterprises Ltd.,Estco Technology Group,WIPO Case No. D2000-0413.
Also, in accordance with the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4., UDRP panels have held that use of a domain name for purposes other than to host a website may constitute bad faith. Such purposes include sending email, phishing, identity theft, or malware distribution (in some such cases, the respondent may host a copycat version of the complainant’s website). Many such cases involve the respondent’s use of the domain name to send deceptive emails, e.g., to obtain sensitive or confidential personal information from prospective job applicants, or to solicit payment of fraudulent invoices by the complainant’s actual or prospective customers. Taking into account the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name for impersonating the Complainant in the furtherance of a fraudulent email scheme, such Respondent’s behavior cannot be considered as good faith use.
In light of the above, the Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
7. DecisionFor 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
Mariya Koval
Sole Panelist
Date: September 15, 2021