The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited, Ireland, represented by McDermott Will & Emery LLP, United States of America (“United States”).
The Respondent is Whois Privacy Protection Foundation, Netherlands / Name Redacted.1
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 31, 2021. On September 1, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 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 September 3, 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 7, 2021
The Center verified that the Complaint 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 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. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 5, 2021.
The Center appointed Clive Duncan Thorne as the sole panelist in this matter on October 8, 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 is an international business that provides a broad range of services and solutions in strategy, consulting, digital, technology and operations under the name ACCENTURE. It is the owner of the trade mark and company name ACCENTURE, and has rights in marks which fully incorporate the trade mark ACCENTURE.
The Complainant began using ACCENTURE in connection with various services including management consulting, technology services, and outsourcing services on January 1, 2001. Since then it has extensively used and continues to use ACCENTURE in connection with various services and specialities, including management consulting and business process services, which comprise various aspects of business operations such as supply chain and logistic services, as well as technology services and outsourcing services.
The Complainant sets out a representative list of United States trade mark registrations for ACCENTURE and ACCENTURE & Design in the Complaint. At Annex D to the Complaint it exhibits true copies of the certificates of registration.
These marks are:
-ACCENTURE, United States Registration No. 3,091,811, registered on May 16, 2006 in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41, and 42;
-ACCENTURE, United States Registration No. 2,665,373, registered on December 24, 2002 in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41, and 42;
-ACCENTURE, United States Registration No. 3,340,780, registered on November 20, 2007 in Classes 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 28;
-ACCENTURE, United States Registration No. 2,884,125, registered on September 14, 2004 in Classes 18, 25, and 24; and
-ACCENTURE & Design, United States Registration No. 3,862,419, registered on October 19, 2010 in Classes 35 and 36.
The Complainant draws attention to an earlier UDRP decision, Accenture Global Services Limited v Domains By Proxy LLC/Name Redacted,WIPO Case No. D2013-2099, in which that panel found that the Complainant owned rights in the United States in the mark ACCENTURE.
The Complainant also owns registered marks for ACCENTURE and ACCENTURE & Design as well as other marks incorporating ACCENTURE in more than 140 countries. Sample certificates of registration are exhibited at Annex E to the Complaint.
The Complainant has developed substantial goodwill in its trading name ACCENTURE, its marks ACCENTURE, and its official domain name
The Complainant draws attention to its promotion of its services on the Internet using the ACCENTURE marks and the domain name
The ACCENTURE marks have been advertised widely in the media and the press. In 2020 its wordwide advertising expenditure totaled USD 32 million. A sample of its global advertisements and press clippings featuring the ACCENTURE marks is exhibited at Annex H.
ACCENTURE has been recognized as a leading global brand. In 2020 it ranked 31st in Interbrand’s “Best Global Brands Report”. This can be seen at Annex I to the Complaint. It has also been recognized by Kantar Millward Brown as its 21st highest BrandZranking. It has been listed for the past 19 years in the Fortune Global 500 list and other Fortune rankings.
The Complainant has received numerous awards for its business, products and services which are detailed on a chart in the Complaint.
The Complainant promotes social development projects worldwide under the ACCENTURE marks including the “Skills to Succeed” initiative details of which are set out in Annex K. At Annex L are set out details of its high level sports sponsorship including, for example, the RBS 6 Nations Rugby Championship. It has collaborated on cultural initiatives across the world, for example, with the Louvres museum and Cannes Lions Festival, as set out in Annex L.
The Complainant, as a result of its extensive use and promotion of ACCENTURE, submits that the marks ACCENTURE have become distinctive and famous globally since long prior to the date of registration of the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name was registered on June 8, 2021. The disputed domain name resolves to a page displaying an Internet browser error message stating, “This site can’t be reached”.
In the absence of a Response and evidence to the contrary the Panel finds the above evidence of the Complainant’s rights adduced by the Complainant to be true.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant submits;
i. the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark ACCENTURE in which the Complainant has prior rights;
ii. the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name;
iii. the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is “nearly identical” and confusingly similar to the trade mark ACCENTURE. The dominant part of the domain name “acceenturre” misspells the mark ACCENTURE by duplicating the first letter “e” and the letter “r”. This has the effect of forming a “nearly identical” version which is insufficient to materially distinguish the disputed domain name from the ACCENTURE trade mark.
The Panel agrees with this submission. It is supported in its view by a similar finding in another UDRP decision cited by the Complainant and in which the present Complainant was complainant; Accenture Global Services Limited v VistaPrint Technologies LtdWIPO Case No. D2015-1922, where that panel found the typo-squatted domain name
The Complainant rightly points out that the Respondent’s use of a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), in this case “.com”, can generally be disregarded in considering confusing similarity.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark ACCENTURE in which the Complainant has established that it has rights, within paragraph 4 (a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsThe Complainant adduces evidence that the Respondent is not making a “legitimate, noncommercial fair use” of the disputed domain name. The evidence of a screenshot from the Respondent’s website set out at Annex U to the Complaint shows that the domain name resolves to a page displaying an Internet browser error message stating: “This site can’t be reached”.
The inactive holding of a disputed domain name in these circumstances is not a legitimate or noncommercial fair use within paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy. There is no contrary evidence from the Respondent showing that it is making use of or demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services within paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.
Moreover the Complainant has adduced evidence to show that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in relation to at least two email addresses. This is shown at Annex Y to the Complaint which contains copies of emails and corresponding invoices which demonstrate that the email addresses have been used to impersonate employees of the Complainant to perpetuate a fraud/phishing scam by soliciting invoice payments from clients of the Complainant. The Complainant has blacked out specific details to preserve confidentiality. It is clear they have been sent from email addresses associated with the disputed domain name, but have been “spoofed” to appear to be from official employees of the Complainant. The Complainant also exhibits at Annex Y copies of the invoices bearing the Complainant’s logo and contact information.
Given such evidence and the absence of contrary evidence from the Respondent, the Panel considers that it is not possible for the Respondent to establish that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel is supported in its view by earlier UDRP decisions in which the Complainant was party which involved domain names incorporating confusingly similar versions of ACCENTURE and in which the respective respondents were found to have no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names which were used for fraud or phishing scams perpetrated via confusingly similar email addresses. See, for example, Accenture Global Services Limited v Michael Hannart,WIPO Case No. D2020-1365.
The Panel therefore finds, noting the Complainant’s prima facie arguments and the absence of a Response, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name within paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithThe Complainant relies upon paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy which provides that “bad faith” registration and use of a domain name can be established if by using the domain name 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 mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliations, or endorsement of its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
Given the evidence of the Complainant’s worldwide reputation and the evidence of the Respondent’s fraudulent use of the disputed domain name set out above, the Respondent would have had knowledge of the Complainant’s rights at the date of registration of the domain name and subsequently used the domain name for fraudulent purposes. It is well-established that such use whereby the Respondent used the domain name to represent itself as the Complainant and to perpetuate a fraud/phishing scam constitutes bad faith within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
As submitted by the Complainant, there was no reason for the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name and to have used it for fraudulent purposes other than to trade off the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s marks.
In these circumstances the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith within 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 disputed domain name
Clive Duncan Thorne
Sole Panelist
Date: October 21, 2021
1 The Respondent appears to have used a name corresponding to the Complainant when registering the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Complainant has requested the redaction of the Respondent’s name in this proceeding. In light of the apparent identity theft, the Panel has redacted the Respondent’s name from this decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain name, which includes the name of the Respondent. The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding, and has indicated Annex 1 to this decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. See Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST-12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted,WIPO Case No. D2009-1788.