Westmore · UDRP DecisionAcceniture.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <acceniture.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the well-known ACCENTURE mark because it reproduced the mark with an additional letter “i”; found no evidence of rights or legitimate interests; and found bad-faith registration and use based on the renown of the mark and evidence that an email address associated with the domain was used to impersonate Complainant and request payment of purported invoices from a vendor. A third party stated that its contact details had been used without authorization, disclaimed any connection to the domain, and consented to transfer or cancellation. Because that person may have been a victim of identity theft, the Panel redacted the name from the published decision.
The timeline behind acceniture.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind acceniture.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates that a domain need not host an active website to support a bad-faith finding when it is used as an email instrument for impersonation and payment fraud. It also shows the importance of separating the apparent domain controller from an individual whose contact details may have been used without authorization.
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. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1243443199 / Name Redacted Case No. D2018-2677 1. The Parties Complainant is ACCENTURE GLOBAL SERVICES LIMITED of Chicago, Illinois, the United States of America (“United States”), represented by DLA Piper US LLP, United States. Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1243443199 of Toronto, Canada / Name Redacted. 1 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <acceniture.com> is registered with Google Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 21, 2018. On November 22, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 26, 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 November 28, 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 November 28, 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 December 7, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 27, 2018. On December 11, 2018, the Center received emails from an individual indicating that the domain name had been registered using Respondent’s contact details without authorization. The Center emailed the Parties on the same day, notifying them of the Respondent identity issue. On January 2, 2019, the Center notified the Parties of the commencement of the panel appointment process. The Center appointed Michael A. Albert as the sole panelist in this matter on January 15, 2019. 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 Since January 2001, Complainant has used and continues to use the mark ACCENTURE in connection with various services, including management consulting, technology services and outsourcing services. It has offices and operations in more than 200 cities in 56 countries. Complainant has owned and operated the website at <accenture.com> since August 30, 2000 to promote management consulting, technology services, outsourcing and other services offered by Complainant and its global offices in connection with the ACCENTURE Mark. Complainant owns more than 1,000 registrations in more than 140 countries for the marks ACCENTURE, ACCENTURE & Design and many other marks incorporating the term ACCENTURE for a variety of products and services including, but not limited to, its management consulting, technology services and outsourcing services. Complainant’s various ACCENTURE trademarks in the United States include the following: Mark Goods and Services Registration No. Registration Date ACCENTURE Various goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42 3,091,811 May 16, 2006 ACCENTURE & Design Various goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42 2,665,373 December 24, 2002 ACCENTURE Various goods in Classes 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24 and 28 3,340,780 November 20, 2007 ACCENTURE Various goods in Classes 18, 25 and 28 2,884,125 September 14, 2004 ACCENTURE & Design Various services in Classes 35 and 36 3,862,419 October 19, 2010 For the past 16 years, Complainant has been listed in the Fortune Global 500, which ranks the world’s largest companies. The ACCENTURE Mark has been advertised in connection with various media. Below is a list of Complainant’s annual advertising expenditures worldwide since 2009: Year Advertising Expenditures (USD) 2009 77 million 2010 67 million 2011 66 million 2012 67 million 2013 69 million 2014 70 million 2015 67 million 2016 67 million 2017 69 million The disputed domain name was registered on November 5, 2018, and does not presently resolve to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark, which has become distinctive and well known globally due to extensive use and promotion. The only difference between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s mark is that the disputed domain name adds the letter “i” in the middle of the ACCENTURE mark. Adding and/or subtracting a letter to/from a trademark without materially changing its appearance or meaning commonly constitutes “typosquatting” and is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity between the domain name and the trademark. See , e.g. , ESPN, Inc. v. XC2, WIPO Case No. D2005-0444 (finding that the respondent’s <espnnews.com> domain name was confusingly similar to the ESPN and ESPNEWS trademarks and that deliberate, slight deviations in marks constitute typosquatting). Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has never been licensed or authorized or otherwise permitted to use Complainant’s mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Further, the website at the disputed domain name is currently inactive and a domain name that resolves to an inactive website is not used in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services. Complainant alleges that Respondent’s conduct is in bad faith. An email address associated with the disputed domain name was used to contact Complainant’s vendor on November 16, 2018, and the sender posed as Complainant and requested payment from the vendor of purported invoices. Registration of a domain name in an attempt to appear associated or affiliated with another to obtain money or other materials constitutes bad-faith use and registration. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. On December 11, 2018, a third party responded to the Written Notice of Complaint indicating that the domain name had been registered using its contact details without authorization. The third party stated, “I have no knowledge of or connection with the domain name ‘acceniture.com’ nor am I actively protecting a domain name at this time…I consent to the remedy requested by Complainant and agree to transfer or cancel the disputed domain name.” 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s well-known ACCENTURE mark because it contains the entirety of Complainant’s mark with the addition of the letter “i” and the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Respondent is not known by Complainant’s mark. Complainant confirms that Respondent does not have license, permission, or authorization to use Complainant’s mark. There is no evidence demonstrating any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name by Respondent. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Respondent’s conduct in this case demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. Given the long use and renown of Complainant’s ACCENTURE marks, Respondent clearly knew or should have known of the ACCENTURE mark at the time Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name. Such knowledge is sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name was appropriated by Respondent in bad faith. See Caesars World, Inc. v. Forum LLC , WIPO Case No. D2005-0517 (finding bad faith where Respondent registered the domain name <caesarspalacepoker.com> after it knew or should have known about Complainant’s trademarks). Complainant provided evidence that Respondent’s intended use of the disputed domain name was and is to mislead the public for commercial gain. Respondent appears to have used the disputed domain name to engage in a phishing and/or identity theft scheme and fraud upon Complainant, by sending an email using the disputed domain name and purporting to be from Complainant. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of 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, <acceniture.com>, be transferred to Complainant. Michael A. Albert Sole Panelist Date: January 29, 2019 1 As Respondent may have been the victim of identity theft, the Panel has decided to redact Respondent’s name from the caption and body of this Decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this Decision an instruction to the Registrar which includes the name of Respondent. The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar, and has indicated that Annex 1 is not to be published due to the circumstances of this case. See Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST-12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted , WIPO Case No. D2009-1788 .
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around acceniture.com
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.