Accentureindia.tech

The timeline behind accentureindia.tech

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Accenture Global Services Limited v. Sanjana Singh Case No. D2017-2188 1. The Parties The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited of Chicago, Illinois, United States of America ("United States"), represented by DLA Piper US LLP, United States. The Respondent is Sanjana Singh of Pune, Maharashtra, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <accentureindia.tech> 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 November 7, 2017. On November 8, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 9, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the 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 proceeding commenced on November 21, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 11, 2017. The Complainant submitted two supplemental filings on November 30, 2017 and December 1, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on December 15, 2017. The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on January 11, 2018. 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 A. Complainant The Complainant is the owner of numerous registrations in jurisdictions around the world for the trade mark ACCENTURE (the "Trade Mark"), including United States trade mark registration number 3,091,811, with a registration date of May 16, 2006. The Complainant has been using the Trade Mark internationally since 2001 in connection with a wide range of management consulting, technology and outsourcing services. B. Respondent The Respondent is apparently a person resident in India. C. The Disputed Domain Name The disputed domain name was registered on August 9, 2017. D. Use of the Disputed Domain Name The disputed domain name resolves to the "www.socialmoto.com" website, the home page of which states as follows "Voted India's best Social and Career networking site. Every 1 out of 4 Indian youth is on Socialmoto." (the "Website"). 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Supplemental Filings Panels have sole discretion, under paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules, whether to accept an unsolicited supplemental filing from either party, bearing in mind the need for procedural efficiency, and the obligation to treat each party with equality and ensure that each party has a fair opportunity to present its case. The party submitting its filing would normally need to show its relevance to the case and why it was unable to provide that information in the complaint or response. The Complainant has submitted the email responses received from the Respondent after the date of commencement of this proceeding, and before the Response due date, in which the Respondent has offered to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant for USD 12,600.00. The Respondent's emails were sent in response to emails from the Complainant to the Respondent dated September 27, 2017 and October 12, 2017 (prior to the date of this proceeding). The Respondent's emails are (1) directly relevant to the question of bad faith; and (2) were sent after the date of the Complaint (but in response to pre-Complaint emails), before the Response due date. In all the circumstances, the Panel therefore determines that it will admit the Complainant's supplemental filings. 6.2 Substantive Elements of the Policy The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration. The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Trade Mark, together with the non-distinctive word "india" (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions , Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), sections 1.7 and 1.8 ). The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of non-exhaustive circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name: (i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) the respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name even if the respondent has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or (iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue. The Complainant has not authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use the Trade Mark. The Panel finds on the record that there is therefore a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the burden of production is thus on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption. The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain name or that the disputed domain name has been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the disputed domain name has been used in order to redirect Internet users to the Website. There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name; and there has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to rebut the Complainant's prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In all the circumstances, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith under sub-paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, in order to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's Trade Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Website or of products or services on the Website. The Panel also finds that the Respondent's offer to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant for USD 12,600.00 amounts to bad faith, under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy. For all the foregoing reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name has been 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 <accentureindia.tech> be transferred to the Complainant. Sebastian M.W. Hughes Sole Panelist Dated: January 25, 2018

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.