Accenture Global Services Limited v Savvy Chaer

WIPO Case No. D2024-0419

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Accenture Global Services Limited v. Savvy Chaer

Case No. D2024-0419

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 Savvy Chaer, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <accenturelogisticschain.com> is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 30, 2024.
On January 30, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On January 31, 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 (Domain Admin / Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org)), and
contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on
February 7, 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

February 10, 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 February 12, 2024. In accordance with the Rules,
paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 3, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 7, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed Andrew F. Christie as the sole panelist in this matter on March 25, 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 an international business that provides a broad range of services and solutions in strategy, consulting, digital, technology and operations.

Since January 2001, the Complainant has extensively used and continues to use the mark ACCENTURE in connection with various services and specialties, including management consulting and business process services, which comprises various aspects of business operations such as supply chain and logistics services, as well as technology services and outsourcing services. It is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for ACCENTURE, including United States Trademark Registration No. 3091811 for the word mark ACCENTURE (filed October 26, 2000; registered May 16, 2006).

The disputed domain name was registered on January 19, 2024. The Complainant provided a screenshot, dated January 27, 2024, of the website to which the disputed domain name was said to then resolve – that website being the Complainant’s website, at “ As of the date of this decision, the

disputed domain name does not resolve to any location.

The Complainant also provided a copy of an email dated January 22, 2024, sent from an email address using the disputed domain name, to what appears to be a logistics company. The email, which claims to authorize the holding of a particular item for pickup, purports to be from “Accenture”.

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.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights on the following grounds, among others. The disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s entire ACCENTURE trademark, paired only with the descriptive terms “logistics” and “chain’ (presumably short for “supply chain”). Adding descriptive terms to a trademark in a domain name fails to negate confusing similarity, especially when a registered trademark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name on the following grounds, among others. The Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark is
not a generic or descriptive term in which the Respondent might have an interest. The Respondent is neither
affiliated with the Complainant, nor has it been licensed or permitted to use Complainant’s ACCENTURE
mark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor was it known as such
prior to the date on which the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not
using the disputed domain name for any legitimate purpose; instead, it is using it to redirect to
Complainant’s own website, and for a corresponding email address that has been used to pose as the

Complainant.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad
faith on the following grounds, among others. The Respondent had constructive notice that the
ACCENTURE mark was a registered trademark in the United States and many other jurisdictions worldwide.

page 3

The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect to the Complainant’s website, and to provide a corresponding email address used to create a false association with Complainant and to perpetrate fraud in connection with deliveries intended for the Complainant, constitutes bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

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 Complainant’s ACCENTURE word trademark is reproduced within, and is clearly recognizable in, the disputed domain name. Although the addition of other terms (here, “logistics” and “chain”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of these terms 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.

The Panel considers that the composition of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation in pursuit of a fraud. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity
with the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. Also, the evidence establishes that the

page 4

(here, impersonation) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent.

WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1.

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.

In the present case, the Panel notes that: (i) the Respondent registered the disputed domain name more than two decades after the Complainant first used, and nearly two decades after the Complainant first registered, its ACCENTURE trademark; and (ii) the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, and merely adds two terms (“logistics” and “chain”) which allude to services in respect of which the Complainant uses its trademark. It is clear the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark.

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.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (here, impersonation) 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.

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 <accenturelogisticschain.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Andrew F. Christie/
Andrew F. Christie
Sole Panelist
Date: April 8, 2024