The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited, Ireland, represented by McDermott Will & Emery LLP, United States of America.
The Respondent is Ahmad Nadeem, Organization Redacted1 , Pakistan.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 25, 2021. On August 26, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On October 26, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 30, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint.
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 September 6, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 26, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 5, 2021. On the same day, the Respondent sent an email communication to the Center.
The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on October 25, 2021. The Panel finds it 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 uses the trademark ACCENTURE in connection with various services, including management consulting and business process services, such as supply chain and logistics services, as well as technology services and outsourcing services. The Complainant has operations in more than 51 countries.
The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations that incorporate ACCENTURE, such as United States trademark registration No. 3,091,811 registered on May 16, 2006, and No. 2,884,125 registered on September 14, 2004. The Complainant also owns trademark registrations in more than 140 countries. The Complainant’s trademarks have been advertised in connection with various media and have been written about in the press. Brand consulting companies in the industry have recognized the ACCENTURE trademark as a leading global brand. The Complainant’s official domain name is
The Domain Name was registered on July 8, 2021. At the time of the Complaint, and the time of drafting the Decision, the Domain Name resolved to a parked page hosted by the Registrar.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant provides evidence of trademark registrations. The Complainant argues that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark ACCENTURE. The addition of the letters “ngg” to the end of the trademark does not eliminate any confusion, particularly since it may be a phonetic attempt at making reference to “engineering,” in which the Complainant operates.
The Respondent is not authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark. In the registrant information, the Respondent has included the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark within the registrant organization. The Complainant asserts this is a false name, and the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor was it known as such prior to the date on which the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Domain Name resolves to a parked page hosted by the Registrar. In addition, the Respondent cannot claim any use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent - given the Complainant’s worldwide reputation and the presence of the ACCENTURE Marks on the Internet - was or should have been aware of the ACCENTURE trademark prior to registering the Domain Name. The Respondent tries to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. It is implausible that the Respondent registered the Domain Name independently, and in good faith, for its own purposes.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions, but sent the following email to the Center on October 5, 2021:
“I wrote back previously as well stating my position on the matter. I do not wish to be a part of any legal proceedings. I would gladly give up the domain i bought if i am compensated for it since i paid a price for it. I therefore deserve to be compensated monetarily”.
6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark ACCENTURE.
The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. The Complainant’s trademark is recognizable in the Domain Name. The addition of the letters “ngg” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarly between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
For the purpose of assessing under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel may ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsThe Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that it has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register the Domain Name or otherwise make use of its trademark. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name as a trademark or acquired unregistered trademark rights. The Respondent cannot establish rights in the Domain Name, as it has not made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering.
The Domain Name incorporates the entirety of the ACCENTURE trademark, carrying a risk of implied affiliation that misleads Internet users as to the nature of the Domain Name, which resolves to a pay-per-click (“PPC”) site hosting links related to and redirecting Internet users to competing services of the Complainant. As such, the Domain Name cannot constitute a bona fide offering nor constitute fair use. See WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 2.5.1 and 2.9.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an unrebutted case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithNoting the Complainant’s reputation, it is likely that the Respondent was aware of the trademark prior to registering the Domain Name. This finding is reinforced noting the incorporation of the Complainant’s trademark not only in the Domain Name itself, but also in the disclosed WhoIs information for the Respondent’s Organization. Based on the case file, the Panel agrees that it is implausible that the Respondent registered the Domain Name in good faith. The Domain Name consists of the Complainant’s trademark entirely and resolves to a PPC site through which Respondent presumably earns click-through revenue. As such, 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 ACCENTURE trademark 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 Respondent’s late-filed communication requesting compensation for the registration of the Domain Name only serves to confirm the Panel’s finding.
For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
7. DecisionFor the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name
Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: November 3, 2021
1 The Panel has decided to redact the name of the Respondent’s Organization, adopting the criterion of the panel in Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST-12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted,WIPO Case No. D2009-1788. The Panel has decided that no purpose can be served by including the Respondent’s Organization in this decision, and has therefore redacted the organization name from the caption and body of this decision. The Panel has, however, attached as Annex 1 to this Decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain names that includes the Respondent’s Organization name, and has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding. However, the Panel has further directed the Center, pursuant to paragraph 4(j) of the Policy and paragraph 16(b) of the Rules, that Annex 1 to this Decision shall not be published except under exceptional circumstances.