WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Accenture Global Services Limited v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0157756560, Contact Privacy Inc., Customer 0157756560 / Milen Radumilo

Case No. D2020-1507

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0157756560, Contact Privacy Inc., Customer 0157756560, Canada / Milen Radumilo, Romania.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <accentuee.com> is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 10, 2020. On June 11, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 11, 2020, 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 16, 2020 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 17, 2020.

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 July 1, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 21, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 28, 2020.

The Center appointed Christian Schalk as the sole panelist in this matter on August 18, 2020. 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. The language of the proceeding is English.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant offers since 2001 services among others in the field of management consulting and business process services. This includes also various aspects of business operations such as supply chain and logistic services as well as technology services and outsourcing services.

The Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark enjoys high degree of reputation and notoriety. It has been recognized as leading global brand by Interbrand’s “Best Global Brands Report” since 2002 and by Kantar Milward Brown’s in its annual “BrandZ – Top 100 Brand Rankings” since 2006. Furthermore, the Complainant has been listed by Fortune Global 500 as one of the world’s largest companies since 2009 and has received numerous awards for its business, products and services provided under the ACCENTURE marks. The Complainant is also active in the field of sports where it has served among others as Official Technology Partner for the RBS 6 Nations Rugby Championship since 2012 and as a global umbrella sponsor of the World Golf Championship.

Previous UDRP panels have found that the Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark is well known globally (Accenture Global Services Limited v. ICS Inc. / PrivacyProtect.org, WIPO Case No. D2013-2098).

The Complainant owns trademark rights in the term ACCENTURE in more than 140 jurisdictions, among them:

- Canadian trademark registration No. TMA595621 for ACCENTURE, application date October 27, 2000, registration date November 25, 2003, covering goods and services in International Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41, 42 and 45;

- European Union trade mark registration No. 001925650 for ACCENTURE, application date October 27, 2000, registration date October 9, 2002, covering goods and services in International Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42;

- Romanian trademark registration No. 044424 for ACCENTURE, application date November 11, 2000, registration date July 26, 2001, covering goods and services in International Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42;

- United States trademark registration No. 3091811 for ACCENTURE, application date October 6, 2000, registration date May 16, 2006, covering goods and services in International Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42.

The Complainant owns also various domain names featuring the term ACCENTURE, among them the domain name <accenture.com>.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on April 30, 2020. According to searches of the Panel, the disputed domain name resolves to a site offering various links in German language, among others to “Accenture”, “Capgemini Karriere” and “Kosten Outplacement Beratung” (which means in English language “cost of outplacement consulting”). According to the evidence provided by the Complainant in an screenshot dated June 9, 2020, the disputed domain name resolved to a site offering various links including one to “Accenture” and another one to “Outsourcing”.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to his ACCENTURE marks. The Complainant states in this context that the disputed domain name is nearly identical to his ACCENTURE marks since the only difference is that the letter “r” toward the end of the mark has been replaced with an extra letter “e” which creates a typographical misspelling in the disputed domain name when compared to the Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark. The Complainant argues that such a minor difference is generally insufficient to materially distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark and cites Accenture Global Services Limited v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2015-1922; and Accenture Global Services Limited v. Francois Babicu, WIPO Case No. D2019-0898 to support this argument. The Complainant concludes therefore, that Internet users are very likely to be confused as to whether an association exist between the disputed domain name and the Complainant.

The Complainant alleges further that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant states that his trademark ACCENTURE is neither generic nor a descriptive term but globally famous and has acquired secondary meaning through the Complainant’s substantial, continuous, and exclusive use of the ACCENTURE mark in connection with the Complainant’s goods and services. The Complainant continues that the Respondent is neither affiliated with, nor has he been licensed or permitted to use the Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark or any domain name incorporating such trademark. In addition, the Respondent is not known under the disputed domain name. The Complainant argues also that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Especially the Respondent has linked the disputed domain name to a website which promotes sponsored click-through links and websites and the Complainant presumes that the Respondent received compensation for each misdirected user. The Complainant cites in this context Accenture Global Services Limited v. ICS Inc. / PrivacyProtect.org, WIPO Case No. D2013-2098; and Maker Studios, Inc. v. ORM LTD / Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0137258808, WIPO Case No. D2014-0918 to support its arguments.

The Complainant adds further that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its rights in the ACCENTURE mark since the Respondent was previously ordered to transfer the domain name <myidaccenture.com> to the Complainant (see Accenture Global Services Limited v. Milen Radumilo, WIPO Case No. D2016-1219). Furthermore, the Respondent has been named as respondent in at least 74 other domain name complaints which all resulted in a transfer of the domain name(s) at issue to the respective complainants. The Complainant is therefore convinced that such behavior constitutes a pattern of bad faith conduct by the Respondent and cites in this context Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A., Credit Industriel de L’Ouest v. Maison Tropicale SA, WIPO Case No. D2007-1817. For all these reasons the Complainant concludes that there is no indication that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain. Instead, the Complainant argues, the Respondent has deliberately chosen a domain name which is comprised of a misspelled version of the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark to appear associated or affiliated with the Complainant in order to benefit from Internet traffic.

The Complainant alleges also that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Given the Complainant’s worldwide reputation and ubiquitous presence of the trademark ACCENTURE, the Complainant believes that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its trademark rights in ACCENTURE when he registered the disputed domain name and that there is no reason for the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name other than to trade off the reputation and the goodwill of the Complainant. The Complainant argues further that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to commercial websites through various sponsored click-through links constitutes bad faith and indicates that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name with the intent to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established trademark rights in the term ACCENTURE which has been registered by trademark offices of many countries of the world.

The disputed domain name is also confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark. The Complainant ACCENTURE trademark and the disputed domain name have the same number of letters. The only difference between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name is that the second last letter “r” has been replaced by the letter “e”, “Accentuee” instead of “Accenture”.

There is a consensus view among UDRP panels that a domain name which contains a common or obvious misspelling of a trademark normally will be found confusingly similar to such trademark, where the misspelled trademark remains the dominant or principal component of the domain name (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.9). In the Panel’s view, the disputed domain name is a clear case of “typosquatting” because the Respondent takes advantage of possible misspellings by Internet users who are unaware of the fact that they have typed the Complainant’s trademark incorrectly in the Internet browser. It is a common experience that when typing a trademark such as ACCENTURE from the memory in the Internet browser that such errors may not be noticed in daily routine even by attentive Internet users when they search for the Complainant’s services in the Internet (see also Accenture Global Services Limited v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd,WIPO Case No. D2015-1922; ( WIPO Case No. D2015-0108).

In addition, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” in the disputed domain name does not affect the determination that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark ACCENTURE in which the Complainant has rights (see also Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Trendimg, WIPO Case No. D2010-0484; Köstrizer Schwarzbierbrauerei v. Macros-Telekom Corp., WIPO Case No. D2001-0936; and Laboratoire Pharmafarm (SAS) v. M. Sivaramakrishan, WIPO Case No. D2001-0615, and cases cited therein). It is well-established that gTLDs such as “.com” are generally disregarded when determining if there is identity or confusing similarity.

For all these reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has fulfilled the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Based on the submissions and materials filed in this case, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

It is the consensus view of UDRP panels that once the complainant has made out a prima facie showing on this element, the burden of production shifts to the respondent (see section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0); Ustream.TV, Inc. v. Vertical Axis, Inc, WIPO Case No. D2008-0598; mVisible Technologies, Inc v. Navigation Catalyst Systems, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2007-1141; and Asian World of Martial Arts Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates, WIPO Case No. D2007-1415.

The Respondent has not provided any evidence of circumstances specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or of any other circumstances giving rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Specifically, the Panel finds no evidence that the Respondent has been or is commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant nor has a license to use its trademark. The Respondent has also not provided the Panel with any substantial explanations as to the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name resolves to a site offering various links in German language, among others to the Complainant. Such a domain parking page displaying several links usually lead to third parties’ sponsored links where third persons receive a certain amount of money if someone clicks on such a link. It is by now well established that pay-per-click (“PPC”) parking pages built around a third party’s trademark do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, nor do they constitute a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(iii) (see Ustream.TV, Inc. v. Vertical Axis, Inc, WIPO Case No. D2008-0598; mVisible Technologies, Inc v. Navigation Catalyst Systems, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2007-1141; Mobile Communication Service Inc v. WebReg, RN, WIPO Case No. D2005-1304; Gerber Products Co. v. LaPorte Holdings, WIPO Case No. D2005-1277; Asian World of Martial Arts Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates, WIPO Case No. D2007-1415; Champangne Lanson v. Development Services/MailPlanet.com, WIPO Case No. D2006-0006; The Knot, Inc. v. In Knot we Trust Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2006-0340).

Therefore, the Panel is convinced that the only reason for the Respondent to register the disputed domain name was, on balance, to capitalize on the Complainant’s goodwill and to use it for bad faith purposes.

In addition, the Respondent was already ordered to transfer the domain name <myidaccenture.com> to the Complainant. The panel of that case found that the domain name, which featured the Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark in its entirety, was registered and used by the respondent in bad faith (Accenture Global Services Limited v. Milen Radumilo, WIPO Case No. D2016-1219). Therefore, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name and the Panel can find no plausible circumstances in which the Respondent could legitimately use the disputed domain name (see also Microsoft Corporation v. Superkay Worldwide, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2004-0071).

For all these reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and therefore, the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is met.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Policy, paragraph 4(b) sets forth four non-exclusive circumstances, which evidence bad faith registration and use of a domain name:

(i) circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or has acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registration to the Complainant who is owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.

The Panel finds that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark and its products and services when it registered the disputed domain name. The Complainant has a strong presence in the Internet. Had the Respondent carried out even a basic search in search engines such as Google or Bing, he would have found a number of references to the Complainant in a prominent manner on the first pages of the respective search engine’s report. Furthermore, the Respondent was already ordered to transfer the domain name <myidaccenture.com> to the Complainant. The Panel of that case found that the domain name, which featured the Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark in its entirety, was registered and used by the Respondent in bad faith (Accenture Global Services Limited v. Milen Radumilo, WIPO Case No. D2016-1219). Therefore, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant when he registered the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds further, that the Respondent is also using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The disputed domain name resolves to a parking page featuring sponsored advertising links. The Respondent’s behavior of redirecting Internet users to commercial websites through various sponsored click-through links is calculated to attract Internet users to the site in the mistaken belief that they are visiting a site of or associated with the Complainant or that they will somehow reach the Complainant’s services when clicking on such links. The object has to be commercial gain, namely PPC or referral revenue achieved through the visitors to the site clicking on the sponsored advertising links. Even if visitors arriving at the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve become aware that this website is not such of the Complainant, the operators of these websites will nonetheless have achieved commercial gain in the form of a business opportunity, namely the possibility that a proportion of those visitors will click on the sponsored links (see Research In Motion Limited v. Privacy Locked LLC/Nat Collicot, WIPO Case No. D2009-0320).

Furthermore, there is a further element, which is relevant in the resolution of this dispute. The Respondent was already involved as a respondent in 74 other domain name complaints where the UDRP panels of the cases found bad faith.

In a number of these cases, the Respondent showed the same behaviour like in this present case, namely registering slight variations of third party trademarks which look like typos of these trademarks, for instance, VENTE-PRIVEE.COM VENTE-PRIVEE.COM IP S.à.r.l vs. Perfect Privacy, LLC / Milen Radumilo, WIPO Case No. D2020-1381 with regard to the domain name <venteeprivee.com>; Konklijke Douwe Egberts B.V. vs. Contact Privary Inc. Customer 0156358211 / Milen Radumilo, WIPO Case No. D2020-0636 with regard to the domain name <jdecoffe.com>; Woodbrass.com vs. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0156096534 /Milen Radumilo, Milen Radumilo, WIPO Case No. D2019-3048 with regard to the domain name <woobrass.com>; BAZARCHIC vs. Milen Radumilo, WIPO Case No. D2019-2781 with regard to the domain name <bazardchic.com>; Association des Centres Distributeures E. Leclerc – A.C.D. Lec vs. Perfect Privacy, LLC / Milen Raduilo, WIPO Case No. D2019-2541 with regard to the domain name <leclec.com>; Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. vs. Milen Radumilo, WIPO Case No. D2019-0009 with regard to the domain name <vikipedia.com>; Carrefour S.A. vs. Perfect Privacy, LLC / Milen Radumilo, WIPO Case No. D2018-2818 with regard to the domain name <carrifour.com>; Vente-privee.com Vente privee.com IP S.à.r.l vs. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0150838655 / Milen Radumilo, WIPO Case No. D2018-2212 with regard to the domain name <ventre-privee.com>; Carrefour vs. Milen Radumilo Privacy Inv. Customer 0151725578, Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0151725578, WIPO Case No. D2018-2203 with regard to the domain name <carrefourt.com>; Intesa Sanpaolo S.A. vs. Milen Radumilo Privacy Protection Service, Communigal Communication Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2015-2290 with regard to the domain name <intesasanoaolo.com>.

Hence, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent has shown a pattern of registering domain names incorporating the marks of third parties and therefore, the Respondent has a history of registering and using domain names in bad faith.

Given all the facts and circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

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 <accentuee.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Christian Schalk
Sole Panelist
Date: September 1, 2020