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


Accenture Global Services Limited v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Name Redacted

Case No. D2013-2099

1. The Parties

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

Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States of America, and Name Redacted, represented by James R. Molinari, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <accenturecom.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 4, 2013. On the same date, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 5, 2013, 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 December 6, 2013 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on December 10, 2013.

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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 12, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 10, 2014. The Response was filed with the Center on January 8, 2014.

The Center appointed Frederick M. Abbott as the sole panelist in this matter on January 30, 2014. 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

Complainant is a multinational management consulting, technology services and outsourcing services company.

An individual named Respondent in this proceeding, through counsel, advised Complainant and the Center that disputed domain name had been registered without that individual’s knowledge or consent. Said individual named Respondent was prepared to transfer the disputed domain name to Complainant. However, because of potential difficulties foreseen in execution of the transfer by the Registrar (because a false email address had been used in the registration), Complainant preferred that this proceeding continue to a decision by the Panel.

Upon preliminary review of the case file, the Panel referred the parties to a previous panel determination, Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST-12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2009-1788. In the referenced proceeding, having concluded that an individual named respondent had been the subject of third-party misuse of personal identity, this sole panelist redacted the name of the individual respondent from his decision, and directed the Registrar to transfer the disputed domain name by means of an Annex that was transmitted to the Registrar by the Center, but was not included in the published decision. This sole panelist considered it appropriate to protect the identity and privacy of the individual named respondent in that proceeding because said respondent had played no role in registration of the disputed domain name.

By Administrative Panel Procedural Order No. 1, dated February 10, 2014, the Panel requested the individual named Respondent in this proceeding to provide such supporting evidence as might be available (such as correspondence with the Registrar) to substantiate that the disputed domain name was registered without knowledge or consent. In reply, the individual named Respondent provided evidence to support the claim that the disputed domain name was registered without knowledge or consent. Complainant raised no objection to a decision that redacted the name of the individual Respondent, and to use of the procedure followed in Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST-12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted, supra.

5. Discussion and Findings

The Panel is satisfied that the individual named Respondent in this proceeding was not party to registration of the disputed domain name, and that registration of the disputed domain name was secured fraudulently (i.e., through knowing misuse by a third-party of the individual Respondent’s identity). The Registrar has advised that the second Respondent, Domains By Proxy, LLC, is not the registrant of the disputed domain name. The registration was obtained by a third-party by fraudulent means, and the individual named Respondent appearing in the WhoIs record disclaims any knowledge of or interest in the disputed domain name.

The Panel does not consider it appropriate or necessary to take into account the interests of the third-party that undertook the registration under false pretenses. The Panel therefore renders this Decision in summary form, taking into account that Complainant has provided substantial evidence to support its rights in the ACCENTURE trademark.

On the basis of the evidence presented in the Complaint, and taking into account the evidence provided by the individual named Respondent, the Panel determines that (1) Complainant has rights in the trademark ACCENTURE, (2) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to that trademark, (3) Complainant has established that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and (4) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

6. 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, <accenturecom.com>, be transferred to Complainant.

For purposes of properly executing this order, the Panel also directs the Registrar’s attention to Annex 1 hereto that identifies the individual listed as registrant of the disputed domain name in the formal record of registration, and orders that the disputed domain name, <accenturecom.com>, be transferred from that individual to Complainant.

The Panel directs the Center that Annex 1 shall not be published along with this Decision.

Frederick M. Abbott
Sole Panelist
Date: February 20, 2014