About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Accenture Global Services Limited v. Milen Radumilo

Case No. D2016-1219

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited of Dublin, Ireland, represented by DLA Piper US LLP, United States of America.

The Respondent is Milen Radumilo of Bucharest, Romania.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <myidaccenture.com> is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 15, 2016. On June 16, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 16, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On June 22, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Complainant a request for confirmation related to the Respondent’s name. The Complainant submitted the First Amended Complaint by email on June 22, 2016. On June 23, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Complainant a request for further amendment related to the Certification Statement specified in Rules, paragraph 3(b)(xiii). The Complainant submitted the Second Amended Complaint by email on June 23, 2016.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the First Amended Complaint and the Second 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 June 24, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 14, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 15, 2016.

The Center appointed Christian Gassauer-Fleissner as the sole panelist in this matter on July 25, 2016. 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

The Complainant is an international business that, along with its affiliates, provides management consulting, technology services and outsourcing services under the name “Accenture”.

The Complainant is the owner of a number of United States of America trademark registrations containing the name “Accenture” (reg. nos. 3862419, 2884125, 3340780, 2665373, 3091811) and two trademarks containing the name “Accenture” registered nationally in Romania (reg. nos. 44424, 46633), the country indicated as home address by the Respondent.

Since August 2000 the Complainant is also owner of the domain name <accenture.com>. Since August 2012, the Complainant has owned and used the subdomain <myid.accenture.com>, which is used as a password protected entry point for the Complainant’s management portal.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on January 31, 2016.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has been recognized worldwide for its business services and brand recognition and that the ACCENTURE trademarks have gained international reputation and are distinctive and well-known globally. The Complainant states that the disputed domain name resolves to a parked page with links to third-party websites.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the ACCENTURE trademarks in which the Complainant has rights, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name fully and exactly incorporates the Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark and is virtually identical to the URL for the Complainant’s password protected online management portal at <myid.accenture.com>. This portal is said to be used by the Complainant and its employees for changing and updating passwords and security measures, registering technology on the Complainant’s internal system and managing other internal processes. The Complainant emphasizes that the word “accenture” is not a descriptive or generic term but, rather, was coined by the Complainant, so consumers associate this term exclusively with the Complainant and its products and services owing to the international goodwill that the Complainant has developed in the ACCENTURE trademark over the years.

The Complainant further asserts that the addition of a gTLD is completely without legal significance and that, as such, the addition of the generic and/or descriptive term “myid” does not lessen the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark. Rather, the addition of the term exacerbates the likelihood of confusion because the disputed domain name is virtually identical to the URL used by the Complainant for its password protected online management portal at <myid.accenture.com>.

The Respondent is said to have no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, to have no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and to have received no any license or consent, express or implied, to use the ACCENTURE mark in a domain name or in any other manner. The Complainant contends that displaying a parked page with links to third-party websites does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant states that it did not authorize the Respondent to register the disputed domain name, nor does it maintain any licensing relationship with the Respondent, and that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and, therefore, cannot claim a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.

The Complainant claims that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith because it was registered with the knowledge of the Complainant’s rights, as the Complainant’s trademarks are well known in Europe, including Romania in particular, and that no real steps have been taken to prevent the risk of confusion. “Accenture” could not be considered a generic or descriptive term, so that the wide recognition, fame and reputation of the Complainant’s mark is persuasive in determining the Respondent’s bad faith intent. Moreover, the use of an URL so close to the Complainant’s existing online management platform is said to show the Respondent’s bad faith. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent’s registration and use of a domain name in connection with a website that features an offer to sell the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith. Finally, the Complainant claims that the Respondent’s bad faith is further supported by the fact that the Respondent has already been a party in numerous UDRP proceedings as a respondent, whereas in five UDRP cases in the past two years, panels found that the domain names were registered and used in bad faith and ordered the transfer of the domain names from the Respondent or cancelled the registration.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Under the Policy, the Complainant must prove with respect to the disputed domain name that:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which it has rights; and

(ii) the 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.

The Panel is satisfied that the Center took all steps reasonably necessary to notify the Respondent of the filing of the Complaint and the initiation of these proceedings and that the failure of the Respondent to furnish a Response to the Complaint within the time period established by the Rules is not due to any omission by the Center. There is sufficient evidence in the case file for the Panel to conclude that the Center complied with its obligations under the Rules, paragraph 2(a).

In case of default, under paragraph 14(a) of the Rules, “the Panel shall proceed to a decision on the complaint”, and under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, “the Panel shall draw such inferences as it considers appropriate”. Furthermore, paragraph 15(a) of the Rules provides that “Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”.

Since the Respondent has not submitted any evidence, the Panel will render its decision on the basis of the uncontroverted evidence supplied by the Complainant.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

As stated by previous UDRP WIPO panel decisions, seeAccenture Global Services Limited v. ICS Inc./PrivacyProtect.org ( WIPO Case No. D2013-2098), the Complainant’s trademark is well known. The Complainant is the owner of an array of registered trademarks containing the name “Accenture”. The disputed domain name includes the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to the trademark. The above mentioned WIPO panel as well as other panels have found that the addition of a gTLD to a trademark does not serve to differentiate the disputed domain name from the trademark, see PepsiCo, Inc. v. PEPSI, SRL and EMS Computer Industry ( WIPO Case No. D2003-0696). Furthermore, the addition of the generic and/or descriptive term “myid” does not lessen the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark. Rather, the addition of the term exacerbates the confusion, because the disputed domain name is virtually identical to the URL for the Complainant’s password protected online management portal at <myid.accenture.com>.

For these reasons and because there is no converse evidence submitted by the Respondent, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent does not bear the name “accenture” and does not appear to engage in a legitimate trade under that or any related name. There is no evidence that the Respondent holds a license or is otherwise authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name resolves to a parked page, with links to third-party websites and the disputed domain name misdirects Internet traffic to the Respondent’s website. Such a use is contrary to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate interest. For these reasons and because the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers to its website in accordance with paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Respondent clearly knew or should have known of the existence of the Complainant’s trademark as the name “Accenture”, as already stated above, is not a generic term but a distinctive trademark, which even enjoys a reputation in many countries of the world, including Romania.

Given the fact that there is no indication that the disputed domain name was ever used for any other purpose than the one noted above and considering the reputation of the trademark ACCENTURE, the Panel does not doubt that this use was already intended at the time of registration of the disputed domain name.

In contravention of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy the Respondent by using the disputed domain name has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's marks and the Complainant’s <myid.accenture.com> website. The Respondent is still using the disputed domain name as a parking page with links to third-party websites.

The Respondent’s Registration and use of a domain name in connection with a website that features an offer to sell the disputed domain name further evidences the Respondent’s bad faith.

Moreover, the Respondent’s bad faith is further supported by the fact that he has already been a party in numerous UDRP proceedings as a respondent, whereas in five UDRP cases in the past two years, panels found that the domain names were registered and used in bad faith and ordered the transfer of the domain names from the Respondent or cancelled the registration.

For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and has been using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

7. Decision

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, <myidaccenture.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Christian Gassauer-Fleissner
Sole Panelist
Date: August 4, 2016

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/