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. Name Redacted

Case No. D2018-0777

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited of Dublin, Ireland, represented by DLA Piper LLP, United States of America (“USA”).

The Respondent is Name Redacted.1

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <acceenture.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with eNom, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 6, 2018. On April 9, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On April 10, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the Respondent’s contact details.

The Center verified that the 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 April 18, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 8, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 9, 2018.

The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on May 23, 2018. 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 or members of its group are the owner of the mark ACCENTURE used since 2001 in relation to, inter alia, management consultancy services registered, inter alia in the USA since at least May 16, 2006 (Registration No. 3,091,811). The mark is distinctive and widely known.

The Domain Name was registered on April 6, 2018, in the name of one of the Complainant’s employees and has not been attached to a website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:

The Complainant or members of its group are the owner of the mark ACCENTURE used since 2001 in relation to, inter alia, management consultancy services registered, inter alia in the USA since at least 2006. The mark is distinctive and well known.

The Domain Name registered in 2018 is an example of typosquatting, has been registered falsely in the name of one of the Complainant’s employees and has not been attached to a website. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ACCENTURE mark adding only an extra letter ‘e’ and a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) which do not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark.

The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and has no authorisation from the Complainant to use a sign confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. Registering a Domain Name falsely in the name of the Complainant to falsely associate a domain name with it cannot be bona fide use and the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

Typosquatting in itself is evidence of registration and use of a Domain Name in bad faith.

Registration of a domain name in an attempt to appear associated or affiliated with another constitutes bad faith use and registration.

Use of incorrect or false contact information in the WhoIs is also evidence of bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name consists of a term confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trade mark (registered in USA for, inter alia, management consultancy services since at least 2006), the additional letter ‘e’ and the gTLD “.com”. Adding an additional letter and a gTLD does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark.

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purpose of the Policy to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name, it being registered falsely in the name of one of the Complainant’s employees.

Registering a domain name falsely in the name of an employee of a complainant is deceptive and confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

As such the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

C. Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Typosquatting per se is bad faith registration and use under the Policy. As is using a misleading contact name and contact details in the WhoIs.

Impersonating a complainant by use of a complainant’s mark and the name of one of its employees is disruptive and also evinces bad faith registration and use under the Policy generally, noting that the circumstances provided under paragraph 4(b) are without limitation.

As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under paragraph 4(a)(iii).

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 Domain Name <acceenture.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: May 30, 2018

1 Respondent appears to have used the name and contact details of a third party when registering the disputed domain name. In light of the potential identity theft, the Panel has redacted Respondent’s name from this Decision. The Panel has attached instructions to the Registrar regarding transfer of the Domain Name as Annex 1 to this Decision, including the name of 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 circumstances of this case.

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/