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. Michi Hofer

Case No. D2021-1912

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited, Ireland, represented by McDermott Will & Emery LLP, United States of America (“United States”).

The Respondent is Michi Hofer, Germany.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <accenture-usa.com> is registered with Cronon AG Berlin, Niederlassung Regensburg (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 18, 2021. On June 18, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 22, 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 the Complainant on June 22, 2021, 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 June 24, 2021. The Center sent a Language of Proceedings communication on June 28, 2021. The Complaint was submitted in English. According to the information the Center received from the Registrar, the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is German. The Complaint requested English as a language of proceedings and the Respondent requested the translation of all documentation into German.

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 the Respondent of the Complaint in both German and English, and the proceedings commenced on July 6, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 26, 2021.

The Center appointed Andrea Mondini as the sole panelist in this matter on August 9, 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

The Complainant is an international business that provides management consulting, technology services, and outsourcing services under the company name and trademark ACCENTURE and has offices and operations worldwide and is a Fortune Global 500 company.

The Complainant owns numerous registrations for the trademark ACCENTURE, including United States registration no. 3,091,811 registered on May 16, 2006, which is registered in numerous classes.

The disputed domain name was registered on April 26, 2018, and redirects to the Complainant’s official website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant in essence contends the following:

The ACCENTURE mark is a leading global brand. The Complainant is the owner of more than 1,000 trademark registrations for the ACCENTURE mark and ACCENTURE & Design mark in more than 140 countries. The ACCENTURE marks have become distinctive and famous globally long prior to the date on which the Respondent registered the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name incorporates the ACCENTURE mark in its entirety. The addition of the country abbreviation “usa” does not dispel confusion.

The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use the ACCENTURE trademark. The invisible redirection to the Complainant’s official website does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods and services. The Respondent therefore has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, or any rights in the ACCENTURE trademarks, or association with the Complainant whatsoever.

The disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith because, given the Complainant’s worldwide reputation, the Respondent was or should have been aware of the ACCENTURE marks prior to registering the disputed domain name.

The Respondent used the disputed domain name in bad faith by concealing its identity and invisibly redirecting to the Complainant’s official website.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, a complainant must establish each of the following elements:

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

(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.

6.1. Language of the Proceeding

In the present case, German is the language of the Registration Agreement. Pursuant to paragraph 11 of the Rules, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the default language of the proceeding is the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the panel to determine otherwise.

Paragraph 10 of the Rules vests a panel with authority to conduct the proceedings in a manner it considers appropriate while also ensuring both that the parties are treated with equality, and that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case.

The Complainant filed the Complaint in English. On June 28, 2021, the Respondent requested in English that the full documentation be translated into German. On July 1, 2021, the Complainant submitted a request for English to be the language of the proceeding.

Considering that the Respondent’s email of June 28, 2021 shows that the Respondent is fluent in the English language, and that the disputed domain name contains the country abbreviation “usa” which suggests that the Respondent targets a United States based, English speaking audience, that the website at the disputed domain name resolves to an English website and the Respondent has not submitted a formal response in German, the Panel determines that the language of the proceeding is English.

6.2 Substantive Issues

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has shown that it holds numerous registrations for the trademark ACCENTURE, including US registration no. 3,091,811 registered on May 16, 2006 and that this trademark is well-known internationally.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, because it incorporates in its entirety the trademark ACCENTURE. The addition of the country abbreviation “usa” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. In addition, the applicable generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) in a domain name “.com” is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. See sections 1.8 and 1.11 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant contends, credibly, that it has not authorized the Respondent to register or use the Complainant’s trademark ACCENTURE in the disputed domain name, and that there is no relationship whatsoever between the Parties. In the absence of any formal Response, the Panel concludes that the Respondent was not authorized or licensed to use the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name and that there is no indication of any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. In particular, the apparent lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name is supported by the invisible, unauthorized redirection to the Complainant’s official website, indicating that there is very likely no connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services (see Carrefour vs. WhoisGuard, Inc., WhoisGuard Protected / Robert Jurek, Katrin Kauft, Purchasing clerk, Starship Tapes & Records, WIPO Case No. D2017-2533).

The Complainant has put forward a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which has not been rebutted by the Respondent. Furthermore, the nature of the disputed domain name, wholly incorporating the Complainant’s trademark with additional characters, carries a risk of implied affiliation (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant has demonstrated that the ACCENTURE mark is distinctive and well-known throughout the world. The Panel thus concludes that the Respondent must have been aware of this trademark and its reputation when it registered the disputed domain name, so that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith (see Accenture Global Services Limited v. Domains By Proxy LLC/ Norman Shaaban, WIPO Case No. D2018-0731).

Considering the high degree of distinctiveness and worldwide reputation of the Complainant’s trademark ACCENTURE, the Respondent’s concealing of its identity and the invisible, unauthorized redirection to the Complainant’s official website, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Indeed, the trademark ACCENTURE is so obviously connected with the Complainant and its services, that its use by someone with no connection with the Complainant would be in opportunistic bad faith.

The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under 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 <accenture-usa.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Andrea Mondini
Sole Panelist
Date: August 13, 2021

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/