1.1 The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited, Ireland, represented by McDermott Will & Emery LLP, United States of America (the “Complainant”).
1.2 The Respondent is Anshuman Thakur, Name Redacted1 , India (the “Respondent”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
2.1 The disputed domain name 3.1 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 Disputed Domain Name. On August 26, 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 September 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 September 10, 2021. 3.2 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”). 3.3 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 13, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 3, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. 3.4 The Center appointed Ike Ehiribe as the sole panelist in this matter on October 22, 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 4.1 The Complainant in this administrative proceeding is Accenture Global Services Limited. The Complainant it is said, provides a broad range of services and solutions in business strategy, consulting, digital technology and operations under the name ACCENTURE and is the owner of the ACCENTURE trademark and company name including marks fully incorporating the ACCENTURE trademark. It is further stated that the Complainant commenced usage of the mark ACCENTURE in commerce, with particular connection with various services including management consulting, business process services, supply chain and logistics services, technology services and outsourcing services on January 1, 2001. The Complainant also has offices and operations in more than 200 cities in 51 countries. The Complainant owns several national and international trademark registrations for the ACCENTURE trademark and design mark both in the United States and in more than 140 other countries including in India where the Respondent is located. In support, the Complainant has attached copies of the registration certificates and a schedule of registrations in the United States for the ACCENTURE trade mark in various classes. 4.2 The Complainant owns and operates the website at “www.accenture.com” which was registered since August 30, 2000 and displays detailed information about the services offered by the Complainant and its global offices in connection with the ACCENTURE trademark. The Complainant has been recognised worldwide, for its business services and brand recognition and for the past 19 years has been listed in the Fortune Global 500. The Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark has been recognised in the Interbrand Best Global Brands Report since 2002 when it ranked 53rd. The Complainant also supports numerous social development projects worldwide with the ACCENTURE Mark, including its SKILLS TO SUCCEED initiative, which has equipped more than 3 million people around the world with the skills to find a job or build a business. 4.3 The Respondent Anshuman Thakur, Name Redacted is based in India and according to the WhoIs record registered the Disputed Domain Name 5.1 The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark as the Disputed Domain Name comprises of a typographical misspelling of the ACCENTURE trademark achieved by the removal of the letter “C” from the mark and pairing it with a geographic descriptive location being India. The Complainant states that the ACCENTURE mark consists of a coined term and should therefore be provided with a wider scope of protection considering the world wide recognition of the brand as evidenced by the Complainant’s extensive advertising campaign. In this regard, the Complainant refers to a previous UDRP decision in Accenture Global Services Limited v. ICS Inc./PrivacyProtect .org,WIPO Case No. D2013-2098. The Complainant therefore, further contends that the mere addition of a generic top level domain “.com” to the Disputed Domain Name does absolutely nothing to prevent a finding of confusing similarity following a previous decision in PepsiCo. Inc. v. PEPSI,SRL and EMS Computer Industry,WIPO Case No. D2003-0696. The Complainant also argues that the addition of a geographic term does not negate a confusing similarity finding, following previous decisions in Accenture Global Services Limited v Kimberly Moreland,WIPO Case No. D2017-2189 and Accenture Global Services Limited v. WhoIs Privacy Protection Service, Inc/ Robert Green,WIPO Case No. D2013-2100. 5.2 In line with paragraph 4 (c) of the Policy, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name on the basis 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 marks. Secondly, the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name nor was it known as such prior to the date on which Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name to trade on the Complainant’s famous trademark. Thirdly, the Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name to provide a bona fide offering of goods and services or for any legitimate purpose since the website associated with the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a domain name resale platform at “www.afternic.com/”. Finally in this regard the Complainant concludes that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, instead the Respondent has chosen to trade off the reputation and goodwill associated with the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark to cause confusion amongst Internet users and to prevent the Complainant from owning the Disputed Domain Name and or attempting to sell the Disputed Domain Name to third parties. 5.3 On the question of bad faith use and registration the Complainant submits that the Respondent was or should have been aware of the ACCENTURE trademark before electing to create the Disputed Domain Name considering the Complainant’s worldwide reputation and the ubiquitous presence of the ACCENTURE trademark on the Internet. The Complainant therefore asserts that the Respondent had constructive notice that the ACCENTURE trademark was registered in the United States. In this regard the Complainant relies on a number of previous decisions including Accenture Global services limited v. ICS Inc./PrivacyProtect.org, supra. The Complainant also refers to the passive or inactive holding of the Disputed Domain Name and the Respondent’s listing of the Disputed Domain Name for sale as possible acts of bad faith following the circumstances prescribed in the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, 3rd edition at section 3.3. Finally, the Complainant refers to what is described as the Respondent’s provision of fraudulent Whois information and the failure to use the Disputed Domain Name for any legitimate purpose other than to sell the Disputed Domain Name in excess of out of pocket costs as further evidence of bad faith use and registration. 5.4 The Complainant also seeks an order to redact the Respondent’s name from this complaint. As regards a request to redact the Respondent’s name from the complaint and proceedings herein, the Complainant submits that the named Respondent Organisation in this proceedings is false. Accordingly, listing the named Respondent Organisation it is argued, as the Respondent in this proceedings may result unfairly in a negative ruling in a name that may be found to be confusingly similar to that of the Complainant. B. Respondent 5.5 The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions, in the circumstances, the Panel shall draw such adverse inferences from the failure of the Respondent to reply as it considers appropriate. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Under paragraph 4(a)of the Policy, to succeed in the administrative proceeding the Complainant must prove that: i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical and confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark of the Complainant; ii) the Complainant 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. 6.2 As expressly stated in the Policy the Complainant must establish the existence of each of these three elements in any administrative proceeding. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar 6.3 This Panel finds and accepts that the Complainant is a well-known brand consulting company concern providing a broad range of business services and solutions in well over 140 countries and owns several trademark registrations for the ACCENTURE trademark both in the US and in India where the Respondent is said to be based. The Panel further takes into account that numerous other UDRP Panelists have recognised and upheld the worldwide reputation of the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark as demonstrated by the plethora of decisions attached to this proceeding by the Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that on a visual examination of the Disputed Domain Name 6.4 Therefore the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that the Disputed Domain Name is without doubt confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests 6.5 From the Complainant’s submissions the Panel is equally satisfied that the Respondent does not possess any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name within the ambit of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. The Respondent who is duty bound to provide evidence of such rights and interests following Croatia Airlines D.D. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd ,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455 has failed to forward any evidence of engaging in any actual bona fide offering of goods and services nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name within the ambit of paragraph 4 (c) of the Policy. As submitted by the Complainant, the Respondent has no authority and or business affiliation with the Complainant and has not been licensed or permitted to use the Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark or to create any domain name incorporating the ACCENTURE trademark. On the contrary, the website associated with the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a domain name resale platform at “www.afternic.com”. As held by previous UDRP Panelists, the Panel is satisfied that offering the Disputed Domain Name for sale or a passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name without more, does not equate to owning rights and legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. See Sprig PharmaAG v. Whois privacy services, provided by DomainProtect /Alexander Zinovjev,WIPO Case No. D2014-1612. 6.6 In the light of the foregoing the Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the Respondent does not hold any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name as stipulated in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith 6.7 With regards to the question of bad faith registration and use, the Panel has taken into account a number of factors to conclude that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith with the intention of exploiting the Complainant’s world wide reputation and goodwill in the ACCENTURE trademark. 6.8 In the first instance, the Panel finds that it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s trademark, and reputation before deciding to register the typosquatted Disputed Domain Name on July 3, 2021 considering the widespread presence of the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark on the Internet. In the circumstances, the Complainant is correct to conclude that the Respondent had constructive notice of the registration of the ACCENTURE trademark in the United States and in many other jurisdictions world wide including in India where the Respondent is based. See in this regard Caesars World Inc. v. Forum LLC,WIPO Case No. D2005-0517 and Accenture Global Services Limited v. ICS Inc. / PrivacyProtect.org. supra. Secondly, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name for the purpose of exploiting the Complainant’s worldwide reputation by intentionally attempting to attract for commercial gain; Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location. Thirdly, the passive or inactive holding of the Disputed Domain Name without a legitimate purpose has been held to be possibly indicative of bad faith use, following Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 where the panel held that: “the concept of a domain name being used in bad faith is not limited to positive actions; inaction is within the concept. That is to say, it is possible in certain circumstances for inactivity by the Respondent to amount to the domain name being used in bad faith.” Fourthly, the Respondent’s listing of the Disputed Domain Name for sale for at least USD100.00 and in excess of the Respondent’s out of pocket costs is further evidence of bad faith use. Fifthly, as indicated at paragraph 5.4 above, the Panel has drawn adverse inferences from the failure of the Respondent to reply to the submissions of the Complainant in these proceedings. 6.9 Finally, on the question of the Complainant’s request for redaction of the Respondent’s named organisation,the Panel finds that the request is well-founded for the reasons discussed above in addition to the fact that the Respondent clearly provided false information for its WhoIs identity. See generally, Accenture Global Services Limited v. Domains By Proxy, LLC/Name Redacted,WIPO Case No. D2013-2099. The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submission to the effect that the named Respondent organisation in this proceeding is not only false but could result in an inappropriate situation where the Panel rules against a name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark and name. 7. Decision 7.1 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, Ike Ehiribe 1 The Panel has decided to redact the name of the Respondent 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 name that includes the Respondent 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.
Sole Panelist
Date: November 5, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy