Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited, Ireland, represented by McDermott Will & Emery LLP, United States of America (“United States”).
Respondent is Registration Private, Domains by Proxy, LLC, United States / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 13, 2021. On October 13, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 13, 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 Complainant on October 14, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amended Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on October 16, 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 19, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 8, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on November 9, 2021.
The Center appointed Yijun Tian as the sole panelist in this matter on November 16, 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 A. ComplainantComplainant, Accenture Global Services Limited, has its registered business address in Ireland. Complainant is a world leading company that provides services and solutions in strategy, consulting, technology, and operations, under the trademark ACCENTURE. Complainant has offices in more than 200 cities in 51 countries.
Complainant has exclusive rights in ACCENTURE, and ACCENTURE related marks (hereinafter “ACCENTURE marks”). Complainant is the owner of ACCENTURE marks in more than 140 jurisdictions, such as the European Union Trademark Registration No. 001958370 registered on August 14, 2002; and the United States Trademark Registration No. 2665373 registered on December 24, 2002 (Annexes D and E to the Complaint). Complainant also owns and operates domain names, which contain the ACCENTURE mark in its entirety, such as
Respondent is Registration Private, Domains by Proxy, LLC, United States / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama. The disputed domain name
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ACCENTURE marks.
Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Complainant contends that Respondent has been involved in numerous proceedings filed under the Policy.
Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to it.
B. RespondentRespondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsParagraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the disputed domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(i) the disputed domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
(ii) Respondent 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.
On the basis of the evidence introduced by Complainant and in particular with regard to the content of the relevant provisions of the Policy, (paragraphs 4(a) - (c)), the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the ACCENTURE marks acquired through registration. Based on the information provided by Complainant, the ACCENTURE marks have been registered internationally, including the European Union trademark registration for ACCENTURE registered since 2002, and the United States trademark registration for ACCENTURE registered since 2002.
In relation to the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name comprises the ACCENTURE mark in its entirety. The disputed domain name
Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name may be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale,WIPO Case No. D2000-0662).
Further, in relation to the gTLD “.com”, the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11 further states: “The applicable Top Level Domain (‘TLD’) 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”.
The Panel therefore holds that the disputed domain name is confusing similarity to the ACCENTURE marks, and the Complaint fulfils the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsParagraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name:
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish Complainant’s trademarks.
The overall burden of proof on this element rests with Complainant. However, it is well established by previous UDRP panel decisions that once a complainant establishes a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, the burden of production shifts to respondent to rebut complainant’s contentions. If the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. (Danzas Holding AG, DHL Operations B.V. v. Ma Shikai,WIPO Case No. D2008-0441; WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1).
According to the Complaint, Complainant is a world leading company that provides services and solutions in strategy, consulting, technology, and operations, under the trademark ACCENTURE. Complainant has offices in more than 200 cities in 51 countries. Complainant has rights in the ACCENTURE mark, including in the European Union and the United States, which long precede Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name. Moreover, Respondent is not an authorized dealer of ACCENTURE-branded products or services. The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and thereby shifts the burden to Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption (The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company,WIPO Case No. D2009-0610; Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,WIPO Case No. D2000-0624; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455).
Based on the following reasons, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name:
(i) There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent has not provided evidence of a legitimate use of the disputed domain name or reasons to justify the choice of the term “accenture” in its business operations. There has been no evidence to show that Complainant has licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the ACCENTURE marks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the ACCENTURE marks.
(ii) There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has any registered trademark rights with respect to the disputed domain name. Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2021, long after the ACCENTURE marks became internationally known. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ACCENTURE marks.
(iii) There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. By contrast, based on the evidence, the disputed domain name has redirected to various websites displaying PPC links to third parties’ websites or security warning messages, or has redirected to some other form of suspicious website (Annex T to the Complaint).
The Panel finds that Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to rebut Complainant’s prima facie showing on Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore holds that the Complaint fulfils the second condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithParagraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four circumstances, which, without limitation, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, namely:
(i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or
(ii) Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) Respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the disputed domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the website or location.
Upon the evidence of the circumstances in this case, it is adequate to conclude that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Registered in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that Complainant has a widespread reputation in the ACCENTURE marks with regard to its products and services. As mentioned above, Complainant is a world leading company that provides services and solutions in strategy, consulting, technology, and operations, and Complainant has offices in more than 200 cities in 51 countries. Complainant has registered its ACCENTURE marks internationally, including trademark registrations in the European Union (since 2002), and in the United States (since 2002). It is not conceivable that Respondent would not have had actual notice of Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name (in 2021). The Panel therefore finds that the ACCENTURE mark is not one that traders could legitimately adopt other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant. (The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, supra).
Moreover, Respondent has chosen not to respond to Complainant’s allegations. According to the UDRP panel’s decision in The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, supra, “the failure of the Respondent to respond to the Complaint further supports an inference of bad faith”. See also Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. (This Domain is For Sale) Joshuathan Investments, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2002-0787.
Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.
Used in Bad Faith
Complainant also has adduced evidence to show that the disputed domain name has redirected to various websites including, among others, the website displaying PPC links related to Complainant’s area of business. Therefore, by using the disputed domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s websites or other online locations.
To establish an “intention for commercial gain” for the purpose of this Policy, evidence is required to indicate that it is “more likely than not” that intention existed (The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, supra).
Given the notoriety of the ACCENTURE marks and the confusing similar disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the Internet users are likely to be confused into thinking that the disputed domain name has a connection with Complainant, contrary to the fact. Through PPC links on the website at the disputed domain name, Respondent is likely to have made commercial gain by free riding on the reputation of Complainant and its trademarks, which is indicative of Respondent’s bad faith use of the disputed domain name. Moreover, Respondent has not responded to the Complaint. The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
Further, the use of the disputed domain name for websites displaying security warning messages or suspicious contents does not prevent a finding of bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4.
In summary, Respondent, by choosing to register and use the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark, intended to ride on the goodwill of Complainant’s trademark in an attempt to exploit Internet users destined for Complainant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary and rebuttal from Respondent, the use of a privacy service, the choice of the disputed domain name and the conduct of Respondent as far as the websites to which the disputed domain name redirects are indicative of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel therefore holds that the Complaint fulfils the third condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
7. DecisionFor all 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
Yijun Tian
Sole Panelist
Dated: December 5, 2021