Accenture Global Services Limited v Murat Dagdeviren

WIPO Case No. DPW2024-0002

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Accenture Global Services Limited v. Murat Dagdeviren

Case No. DPW2024-0002

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 Murat Dagdeviren, Türkiye.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <accenturegel.pw> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a

PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 22,
2024. On February 22, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar
verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 23, 2024, 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 (Unidentified Registrant) and contact information
in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 1, 2024, 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 March 6, 2024.

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, and the proceedings commenced on March 8, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5,
the due date for Response was March 28, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 7, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed Fabrizio Bedarida as the sole panelist in this matter on April 22, 2024. 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 corporation organized under the laws of Ireland, with its principal place of business in
Dublin, Ireland.

The ACCENTURE trademark has been recognized as a leading global brand by brand consulting companies in the industry and has already been recognized as a renowned trademark in previous UDRP decisions (for example, Accenture Global Services Limited v. ICS Inc. / PrivacyProtect.org, WIPO Case No. D2013-2098).

The Complainant has numerous registrations for the ACCENTURE trademark around the world. The

Complainant is, inter alia, the owner of the following:

- United States trademark registration number 3,091,811 for the ACCENTURE trademark registered on

May 16, 2006;

- United States trademark registration number 2,665,373 for the ACCENTURE (device) trademark

registered on December 24, 2002;

- Turkish trademark registration number 2000 24669 for the ACCENTURE (word) trademark registered

on April 12, 2002.

The Complainant also owns and operates the domain name <accenture.com>, registered since August 30,

2000.

The disputed domain name was registered on September 30, 2023.

The disputed domain name is currently inactive. From the submissions provided by the Complainant, it appears that previously (at least on February 18, 2024) the Respondent used the disputed domain name for an unauthorized website offering services including some services competing with those of the Complainant.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ACCENTURE trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and particularly that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name, which is now inactive,

for an unauthorized commercial website offering services competing with those offered by the Complainant,
attempting to appear affiliated with the Complainant, and that this is clear inference of bad faith use and

registration of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

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

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

In order for the Complainant to obtain a transfer of the disputed domain name, paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must demonstrate to the Panel that:

(i) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and

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

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the mark is incorporated entirely and recognizable within the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Although the addition of other terms here, “gel”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

page 4

The disputed domain name previously resolved to a website under the header, “Busko”, offering competing services to those of the Complainant. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to mislead Internet users to competing commercial services cannot constitute fair use under the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 2.5.1 and 2.5.3.

The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark registrations and rights to the ACCENTURE trademark when it registered the disputed domain name.

ACCENTURE is not a common or descriptive term, but a renowned trademark. The disputed domain name contains in its entirety, without any authorization or approval, the Complainant’s registered ACCENTURE trademark.

The disputed domain name was registered many years after the Complainant’s renowned trademark was registered and has been used to offer services in direct competition with those of the Complainant. In addition, owing to the substantial presence established worldwide and on the Internet by the Complainant, it is at the least very unlikely that the Respondent was not aware of the existence of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name.

Therefore, it is more likely than not that the Respondent, when registering the disputed domain name, had knowledge of the Complainant’s earlier rights to the ACCENTURE trademark and trade name.

Indeed, the Respondent’s previous use of the disputed domain name for an unauthorized commercial website offering services competing with those of the Complainant is a clear inference that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark, and this amounts to bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain name.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity – here, claimed as passing off, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

The bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name is also affirmed by the fact that the proceeding. This is further evidence of bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy.

The fact that the disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website does not prevent a finding of bad faith. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to

page 5

WIPO Overview 3.0

which the domain name may be put. , section 3.3. Having reviewed the record, the domain name, and the previous use of the domain name, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 <accenturegel.pw> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Fabrizio Bedarida/
Fabrizio Bedarida
Sole Panelist
Date: May 6, 2024