Westmore · UDRP DecisionAccentureca.net
The Panel ordered transfer of <accentureca.net>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the famous ACCENTURE mark because it incorporated the mark in full with the letters “ca” and the “.net” suffix. The Complainant established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, which the non-responding Respondent did not rebut. Bad faith was established by the Respondent’s use of the domain for an email and invoice impersonating a Canadian managing director of the Complainant and directing a vendor or customer to make payments to accounts operated by the Respondent.
The timeline behind accentureca.net
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
This decision illustrates that a parked website does not prevent a bad-faith finding where the domain is separately used for email impersonation and attempted payment diversion. It also shows how a geographic-looking addition such as “ca” can reinforce, rather than dispel, confusion when the resulting domain is used to impersonate the complainant’s Canadian operations.
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. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Sean Sterling Case No. D2018-2318 1. The Parties The Complainants are Accenture Global Services Limited of Chicago, Illinois, United States of America (“United States”) and Accenture Global Services Limited of Dublin, Ireland, (hereinafter referred to jointly and severally as “Complainant”) represented by DLA Piper US LLP, United States. The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama, Panama / Sean Sterling of Berlin, Germany (hereinafter referred to jointly and severally as “Respondent”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <accentureca.net> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 12, 2018. On October 12, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 12, 2018, 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 Complainant on October 16, 2018 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on October 16, 2018. 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 17, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 6, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on November 7, 2018. The Center appointed Scott Donahey as the sole panelist in this matter on November 9, 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 Complainant is engaged in providing management consulting, technology services, and outsourcing services on an international basis. Complainant has offices and operations in more than 200 cities in 56 different countries. Complainant began using the business name and mark ACCENTURE in connection with its services on January 1, 2001. It has numerous marks registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), the earliest of which issued on December 24, 2002. Complaint, Annex D. Complainant has used its mark continuously on a worldwide basis since January 1, 2001, and also has registered trademark rights in the ACCENTURE in more than 140 countries. See, Complaint, Annex E. Complainant has advertised its services featuring its ACCENTURE mark extensively. Since 2009 and through 2017, Complainant has annually spent between USD 66 million and USD 77 million on such advertising. See, Annex F. Complainant has registered and is using the domain name <accenture.com> to resolve to a website promoting the various services it offers under the ACCENTURE mark. Complaint, Annex F. Complainant’s Accenture mark has been listed in the Fortune Global 500 marks for the past 16 years. Since 2002 the ACCENTURE mark has been recognized in Interbrand’s Best Global Brands Report , and in 2017 was ranked 37th in the world. Complaint, Annex H. The ACCENTURE mark has been included in the Brandz – Top 100 Brand Ranking since 2006, and in 2017 ranked number 37. Complaint, Annex I. Millions of sports fans have encountered the ACCENTURE mark through its sponsorship of the 6 Nations Rugby Championship from 2012 to 2017, and of the World Golf Championships, including the title sponsor of the season opening event, the Accenture Match Play Championship. Complaint, Annex K. The ACCENTURE mark has also been employed as the concert sponsor for the Rheingau Musik Festival in Germany. Complaint, Annex L. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on August 23, 2018. The disputed domain name resolves to a web site that is currently parked. Complaint, Annex R. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name, <accentureca.net>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s registered famous trademark ACCENTURE. Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name in that Respondent has never been authorized, licensed, or in any way given permission to use Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark, nor has it made any legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Complainant contends that Respondent has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith, since it should have or was aware of Complainant’s famous ACCENTURE service mark and has sent an email to one of Complainant’s vendors which incorporates an email header which appears to come from an email address associated with Complainant. The email requests that the vendor immediately pay invoices to Respondent’s bank account. Complaint, Annex S. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: “A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.” Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the domain name registered by the respondent 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 domain name; and (iii) that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.” A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name consists of Complainant’s famous ACCENTURE mark to which has been appended the letters “ca,” which letters correspond to the country code domain name for the country of Canada, and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.net”. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous service mark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, UDRP panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible 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. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1 . In the present case Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names and Respondent has failed to assert any such rights. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The disputed domain name is not only similar in appearance to the fanciful and famous ACCENTURE trademark, but it appends the letters “ca” which in the context of domain names suggests that it has been a domain name which has been assigned by the operator of the Canadian country code “.ca”, followed by the gTLD suffix “.net”. Moreover, Respondent has used the disputed domain name in a letter enclosing an invoice to one of Complainant’s customers requesting that payments be made for services apparently rendered by Complainant to accounts operated by Respondent. The email is purportedly signed by a “Managing Director” of Complainant in Canada, and the signature block lists Complainant’s business address in Canada. Neither the email’s sender nor the domain name is associated in any way with Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds 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 <accentureca.net> be transferred to Complainant. Scott Donahey Sole Panelist Date: November 11, 2018
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around accentureca.net
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.