À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Sensibilisation Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Application Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO ALERT États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Accenture Global Services Limited v. Gerald Wilson

Case No. D2018-0935

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Gerald Wilson of Surbiton, Surrey, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <accenturegrp.com> (“Domain Name”) is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 26, 2018. On April 27, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On April 27, 2018, 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.

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 May 1, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 21, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 22, 2018.

The Center appointed Tommaso La Scala as the sole panelist in this matter on May 30, 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 is a well-known global management consulting and professional firm which uses the trademark ACCENTURE since 2001 in order to identify its services.

In this regard, the Complainant owns a considerable trademark portfolio that involves various jurisdictions throughout the world for the mark ACCENTURE.

The ACCENTURE trademark is widely recognized as a valuable leading global brand (even listed in the Fortune Global 500). Many UDRP panels have found that the Complainant and its trademarks are well-known throughout the world (see Accenture Global Services Limited v. ICS INC. / PrivacyProtect.org, WIPO Case No. D2013-2098; Accenture Global Services Limited v. WhoIs Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / ROBERT GREEN, WIPO Case No. D2013-2100; Accenture Global Services Limited v. Accenture Automotives Garage LLC / K.V. Binuraj / NetSonic Computers, WIPO Case No. D2014-1328; Accenture Global Services Limited v. Christophe Eck, WIPO Case No. D2017-0557).

The Domain Name <accenturegrp.com> was registered on March 13, 2018. The registrant of the Domain Name is Gerald Wilson. The Domain Name resolves to an inactive website and has been used to send fraudulent emails.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant submits that the Domain Name is identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark, as the Domain Name’s inclusion of the abbreviation of the generic corporate designation for “group” (“grp”) does not materially distinguish it from the ACCENTURE trademark.

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor it is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain, to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademarks of another.

The Domain Name currently resolves to an inactive website and has been used in connection with an email address – signed by an unknown “General Manager” – that quoted the address of one of the Complainant’s offices to mislead the Complainant’s vendors.

Given the above, the Complainant further states that the Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith, considering that the Respondent surely had constructive notice that the ACCENTURE trademark was registered in the United States and in many other jurisdictions worldwide.

In addition, registration of a domain name in an attempt to appear associated or affiliated with another to obtain money or other materials is a clear evidence of bad faith use and registration.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must prove each of the following elements:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(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 Complainant has established its registered rights in the ACCENTURE trademark.

The Domain Name <accenturegrp.com> is composed of the ACCENTURE trademark to which the letters “grp” are added. That is a clear reference to the generic and merely descriptive word “group”.

Such addition does not differentiate at all the Domain Name from the ACCENTURE trademark, nor does the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11) and also Accenture Global Services Limited v. Christophe Eck, supra.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel believes the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use any of its trademarks or to register the Domain Name incorporating its trademarks. The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name with intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademarks of the Complainant.

Based on the evidence submitted, the Respondent attempted to appear associated or affiliated with the Complainant and its ACCENTURE trademark using an email account connected with the Domain Name, in order to achieve commercial gain by misleading the Complainant’s vendors.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Taking into account the renowned status of the ACCENTURE trademark and the specific circumstances of this case – namely the Respondent’s attempt to appear associated or affiliated with the Complainant and thus obtaining a commercial gain – the Panel believes that the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant’s well-known ACCENTURE trademark at the time of registration of the Domain Name, and therefore registered the Domain Name in bad faith.

In particular, the Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith for the purpose of misleading third parties on the origin of emails created using the Domain Name, i.e., to disrupt the Complainant’s vendors and even its reputation.

Furthermore, the Complainant has submitted convincing evidence that the Domain Name <accenturegrp.com> was used to send emails to the Complainant’s vendors, pretending to be an unknown Complainant’s General Manager.

The Panel finds that using the Domain Name to create and use an email address in the manner set out above is an evidence of a fraudulent email scheme and supports a finding of bad faith registration and use of the Domain Name.

Therefore, the condition set out by paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant.

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 <accenturegrp.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Tommaso La Scala
Sole Panelist
Date: June 8, 2018

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