Accenture Global Services Limited v mustafolamoro jdj, ACC

WIPO Case No. D2022-4255

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Accenture Global Services Limited v. mustafolamoro jdj, ACC

Case No. D2022-4255

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited, Ireland, represented by McDermott Will & Emery

LLP, United States of America (“USA”).

The Respondent is mustafolamoro jdj, ACC, USA.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <accenturecareer.org> is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a

Openprovider (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 9,
2022. On November 9, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar
verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 10, 2022, 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 (Redacted for privacy / ACC) and contact
information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 11,
2022 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

November 14, 2022.

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 November 16, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 6, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any

response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 7, 2022.
The Center appointed Mihaela Maravela as the sole panelist in this matter on December 12, 2022. The
Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and

page 2

Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the
Rules, paragraph 7.

The language of the proceeding is English, being the language of the Registration Agreement, as per paragraph 11(a) of the Rules.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is an international business that provides a broad range of services and solutions in strategy, consulting, digital, technology and operations under the name ACCENTURE. The Complainant has offices and operations in more than 200 cities in 50 countries.

The Complainant is the exclusive owner of a number of registered trademarks consisting of ACCENTURE including the USA trademark no. 3,091,811, registered on May 16, 2006, covering goods in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41, and 42 or the USA trademark no. 2,665,373, registered on December 24, 2002, covering

goods in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41, and 42.

Also, the Complainant has registered the trademark ACCENTURE and ACCENTURE & Design in more than 140 countries (and the Complainant has submitted sample evidence in this regard), for a variety of products and services including, but not limited to, its management consulting, technology services and outsourcing

services. The Complainant owns and operates the website at “ registered from August

29, 2000. The ACCENTURE trademark ranked 32th in the 2021 Interbrand’s Best Global Brands Report.

The disputed domain name was registered on August 19, 2022 and does not resolve to an active website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the famous trademark of
the Complainant. The only difference in the disputed domain name is the addition of the word “career” which
does nothing to reduce its confusing similarity with the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademarks. Rather, the
descriptive term “career” suggests an affiliation with the Complainant, as the inclusion of such term in the
disputed domain name appears to refer to the Complainant’s own careers/job openings.

As regards to the second element, the Complainant argues that the Respondent is neither affiliated with, nor has it been licensed or permitted to use the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademarks or any domain names incorporating the ACCENTURE trademarks. The Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for

any purpose: it resolves to a page displaying an Internet browser error message stating “[t]his site can’t be
reached”. The Complainant concludes that the Respondent is not making a legitimate, noncommercial or
fair use of the disputed domain name, and that it appears that the Respondent has chosen the disputed
domain name to trade off the reputation and goodwill associated with the Complainant’s ACCENTURE
trademarks, to cause confusion amongst Internet users and the Complainant’s customers, and to prevent the
Complainant from owning the disputed domain name.

With respect to the third element, the Complainant alleges that given its worldwide reputation and the ubiquitous presence of the ACCENTURE trademarks on the Internet, the Respondent was or should have been aware of the ACCENTURE trademarks long prior to registering the disputed domain name. The Complainant also argues that given the distinctive and well-known character of its ACCENTURE trademark throughout the world, it is implausible for the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name independently for its own purposes. These facts are indicative of the disputed domain name being held in bad faith according to the Complainant.

page 3

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1. Preliminary Matters

No communication has been received from the Respondent in this case. However, given that the Complaint was sent to the relevant address disclosed by the Registrar, the Panel considers that this satisfies the requirement in paragraph 2(a) of the UDRP Rules to “employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice”. Accordingly, the Panel considers it can proceed to determine the Complaint based on the statements and documents submitted by the Complainant as per paragraph 15(a) of the Rules and to draw inferences from the Respondent’s failure to file any Response. While the Respondent’s failure to file a Response does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default.

The applicable standard of proof in UDRP cases is the “balance of probabilities” or “preponderance of the
evidence”, and the Panel can draw certain inferences in light of the particular facts and circumstances of the
case. See section 4.2, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition

(“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

6.2. Substantive Matters

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

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

(ii)          that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

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

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has provided evidence of its rights in the ACCENTURE trademarks. The trademark ACCENTURE is reproduced in its entirety in the disputed domain name. The addition of “career” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trademarks. The fact that a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s trademark is sufficient to establish identity or confusing similarity for the purpose of the Policy, despite the addition of other words to such trademarks. The addition of another term (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

It is well accepted by UDRP panels that a generic Top-level-Domain (“gTLD”), such as “.org”, is typically ignored when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusing similar to a trademark. See section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

This Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks and therefore finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.

page 4

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of establishing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

As established by previous UDRP panels, it is sufficient for the Complainant to make a prima facie case demonstrating that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to place the burden of production on the Respondent (see section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). In

prima facie

the present case, the Complainant has established a case that it holds rights over the trademarks acquire and use the disputed domain name.

There is no evidence that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor does the Respondent appear to engage in any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraphs 4(c)(i) and (iii) of the Policy. Also, there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. The Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions, claiming any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Furthermore, the characteristics of the disputed domain name are apt to suggest an affiliation or connection with the Complainant, which prevents any use of them by the Respondent from being considered fair. In this respect, section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 provides that “[...] where a domain name consists of a

trademark plus an additional term (at the second- or top-level), UDRP panels have largely held that such
composition cannot constitute fair use if it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement

by the trademark owner”.

With the evidence on file, the Panel finds that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

According to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Policy indicates that certain circumstances specified in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy may, “in particular but without limitation”, be evidence of the disputed domain name’s registration and use in bad faith.

According to the unrebutted assertions of the Complainant, its ACCENTURE trademark was widely used in commerce well before the registration of the disputed domain name and is well-known. The disputed domain name includes the Complainant’s trademarks, in addition to the relevant gTLD. Under these circumstances, it is most likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the registration date of the disputed domain name. The Respondent provided no explanations for why it registered the disputed domain name.

As regards to the use, the disputed domain name is passively held.

Section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 describes the circumstances under which the passive holding of a domain will be considered to be a bad faith registration: “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 which the domain name may be put”.

The Panel finds that passive holding of the disputed domain name does not in the circumstances of this case prevent a finding of bad faith. There is no evidence in the record of a legitimate use of the disputed domain

page 5

name. The trademark of the Complainant is distinctive and widely used in commerce. UDRP panels have
consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a
famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.

See section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

Moreover, the Respondent has not formally participated in these proceedings and has failed to rebut the none would seem plausible.

In the Panel’s view, the circumstances of the case represent evidence of registration and use in bad faith of the disputed domain name. The Respondent failed to bring evidence as to the contrary. Consequently, the Panel concludes that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is fulfilled.

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 <accenturecareer.org> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Mihaela Maravela/
Mihaela Maravela
Sole Panelist
Date: December 26, 2022