About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Accenture Global Services Limited v. Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Thanh minh Dinh, Links45guide

Case No. D2021-4372

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 Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Thanh minh Dinh, Links45guide, Nigeria.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <accenturexchange.fun> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 24, 2021. On December 27, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 27, 2021, 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 December 29, 2021 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 December 30, 2021.

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 January 13, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 2, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any formal Response. However, on December 29, 2021 and January 14, 2022 the Respondent sent informal communications to the Center asking for further information. Accordingly, the Center sent the Commencement of Panel Appointment Process on February 16, 2022.

The Center appointed Alfred Meijboom as the sole panelist in this matter on February 24, 2022. 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 under the trademark and company name ACCENTURE.

Since January 2001, the Complainant has extensively used and continues to use the trademark 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. The Complainant has offices and operations in more than 200 cities in 51 countries.

The Complainant owns numerous registrations for the trademark ACCENTURE in various jurisdictions, including United States registration No. 3,091,811, registered on May 16, 2006 (the “Trademark”).

The disputed domain name was registered on November 4, 2021. The disputed domain name resolves to a website advertising a “cryptocurrency investment platform” and other financial services that are related to, or have the potential to compete with, the Complainant’s financial services.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has established all three elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not formally respond to the Complainant’s contentions. However, the Respondent sent informal communications to the Center asking for further information on December 29, 2021 and January 14, 2022.

C. Parties’ previous dispute

The Parties to the present case had recently been involved in a nearly identical case which was decided under the Policy (Accenture Global Services Limited v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Thanh Minh Dinh, WIPO Case No. D2021-1794), which was decided on August 12, 2021. According to this decision, the facts of the matter, including the use of the disputed domain name to advertise a “cryptocurrency investment platform”, as well as the Complainant’s contentions, are identical to the facts of the present matter, with the exception that the generic Top-Level domain (“gTLD”) of disputed domain name in WIPO Case No. D2021-1794 was “.com”, while being “.fun” in the present case. As in WIPO Case No. D2021-1794, the Respondent sent brief communications to the Center alleging that he did not understand the proceedings and asking for more information. The panel in WIPO Case No. D2021-1794 held that the Complainant satisfied the three requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and ordered the domain name <accenturexchange.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

6. Discussion and Findings

As the facts and allegations in WIPO Case No. D2021-1794 are nearly identical to those in the present matter, and the Panel in the present matter concurs with the arguments in support of the transfer in the domain name of WIPO Case No. D2021-1794, the Panel accordingly finds the Complainant has satisfied its burden in this case, as briefly explained below.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has established that it has rights in the Trademark. The Trademark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name, and the addition of the term “xchange” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.

According to section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) a gTLD is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test, so that the disputed domain name’s gTLD “.fun” does not change the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark.

Accordingly, the first requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is met.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has put forward a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which has not been rebutted by the Respondent. Use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name for a competing website does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial fair use.

Furthermore, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name nearly three months after WIPO Case No. D2021-1794 was decided. This fact reinforces the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (see sections 2.5.2(iv) and 2.5.3 of WIPO Overview 3.0).

The Panel in the present matter is therefore also satisfied that the second requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is met.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Registration and use of the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Trademark is clear evidence of bad faith. Bad faith is further affirmed by the Respondent’s knowledge of the Trademark and registration of the disputed domain name approximately three months after the decision in WIPO Case No. D2021-1794 (see sections 3.1.2 and 3.2.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0).

The Panel in the present matter is therefore also satisfied that the third requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is met.

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 <accenturexchange.fun> be transferred to the Complainant.

Alfred Meijboom
Sole Panelist
Date: March 10, 2022

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