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. Kevin Ingla / Domain Discreet Privacy Service

Case No. D2014-0470

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Kevin Ingla of Burlington, Ontario, Canada; Domain Discreet Privacy Service of Jackonsville, Florida, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name<accentureservicesinc.com> is registered with Register.com (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on March 26, 2014. On March 26, 2014 the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 27, 2014, 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 March 28, 2014 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 April 2, 2014.

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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 4, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 24, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on April 30, 2014.

The Center appointed Sir Ian Barker as the sole panelist in this matter on May 5, 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

The Complainant is an international company, centered in the Republic of Ireland, that provides management consulting, technology services and outsourcing services internationally. It markets its services under the name Accenture worldwide. In the fiscal year of 2009 over USD 77 million was spent on global advertising; in the fiscal year 2010 over USD 67 million and in the fiscal year 2011 more than USD 66 million. The Complainant's advertising material, sponsorships, billboards and television advertisements use the word "Accenture".

The Complainant owns a number of United States registered trademarks for ACCENTURE having filed its first trademark application in the United States Patent and Trademark Office on October 6, 2000, achieving its first registration on May 16, 2006.

The Complainant owns more than 1,000 registrations worldwide for the mark ACCENTURE and ACCENTURE and design as well as for other marks incorporating the Accenture brand for a variety of products and services, including but not limited to, its management consulting, technology services and outsourcing services.

The Complainant has been recognized as a leading global brand by a number of brand consulting companies. Its mark has become well-known globally and enjoys distinctiveness and notoriety.

The disputed domain name was created on November 12, 2013. The Complainant did not authorize the Respondent to register the disputed domain name. It has no relationship with the Respondent.

The disputed domain name resolves to a website that states: "This site has exceeded the allotted band witdth". It previously resolved to a website that purported to offer loans from "Accenture Services Inc".

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark. The addition of the generic or descriptive terms "services" and "inc" does not lessen the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's ACCENTURE mark. Rather the addition of the word "services" exacerbates the likelihood of confusion because the Complainant provides a wide range of services.

None of the provisions of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy applies to the Respondent. Accordingly, the Respondent can have no rights nor legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Respondent has used the disputed domain name intentionally to attempt to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, thus creating a likelihood of confusion both with the Complainant's mark and as to the source, sponsorship affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent's website. Given the Complainant's worldwide reputation and presence of the ACCENTURE mark on the Internet, the Respondent should have been aware of the ACCENTURE mark when registering the disputed domain name.

By providing links to third party websites, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for the bad faith purpose of intentionally attempting to attract users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's ACCENTURE trademark. The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the Complainant as owner of the trademark reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name.

The Respondent's use of a proxy registration service to hide its identity is further proof of bad faith.

There is no reasonable explanation of the Respondent's selection of the disputed domain name other than that the Respondent was intentionally attempting to trade off the goodwill of the Complainant's ACCENTURE mark.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to be entitled to a transfer of a domain name, a complainant shall prove the following three elements:

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

(ii) The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark ACCENTURE. The addition of the generic terms "services" and "inc" does not lessen the confusing similarity but it exacerbates the confusing similarity because the term "services" is generically description of the Complainant's business.

Consequently, the Complainant has established the first limb of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant gave the Respondent no rights whatsoever to reflect its trademark in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not filed a Response and has not taken advantage of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy that sets out a number of defenses which a respondent can plead in regard to the allegation that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. Consequently, the Complainant has proved the second limb of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

It is not difficult to infer bad faith registration and continuing bad faith use of the disputed domain name for all or any of the following reasons:

(a) The worldwide fame of the Complainant's mark makes it highly likely that the Respondent knew of the Complainant and its mark at the time when it registered the disputed domain name some 13 years after the Complainant first filed for trademark protection in the United States.

(b) The previous use of the website of the Respondent shows that the Respondent had been using the disputed domain name intentionally to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of belief by the Internet user as to the source of sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement by the Complainant of the Respondent's website.

(c) The Respondent was clearly intending to divert traffic away from the Complainant's business.

(d) Under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy bad faith registration and use can be inferred where the respondent has registered a domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name. The Respondent has engaged in such conduct.

For all these reasons the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

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 <accentureservicesinc.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Sir Ian Barker
Sole Panelist
Date: May 8, 2014

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/