Westmore · UDRP DecisionAccentuire.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <accentuire.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the ACCENTURE marks because it merely added the letter “i”; found no rights or legitimate interests; and found bad-faith registration and use based on evidence that the domain and associated email addresses were used to impersonate the Complainant in fraudulent invoice-payment communications with a client.
The timeline behind accentuire.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 accentuire.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates that a one-letter domain variation combined with email impersonation and fraudulent invoice requests can provide strong evidence across all three UDRP elements. An inactive website did not prevent a bad-faith finding because the Panel considered use of email addresses associated with the domain.
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 et al. v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Jerry Marvis Case No. D2019-0493 1. The Parties The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited et al. of Dublin, Ireland, represented by Mayer Brown LLP, United States of America (the “United States”). The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama, Panama / Jerry Marvis of Manchester, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <accentuire.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 2, 2019. On March 4, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 4, 2019, 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 March 5, 2019 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 March 7, 2019. 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 March 12, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 1, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 2, 2019. The Center appointed Mario Soerensen Garcia as the sole panelist in this matter on April 8, 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 The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited and its affiliates, a leading global professional services company that provides a broad range of services and solutions in strategy, consulting, digital, technology and operations, with 449,000 people serving clients in more than 120 countries. The Complainant has been using the mark ACCENTURE since January 1, 2001 and owns several trademark registrations around the world for ACCENTURE and ACCENTURE & design, including the United States trademark registrations for ACCENTURE dated from 2006 (registration no. 3,091,811, granted on May 16, 2006) and ACCENTURE & design dated from 2010 (registration no. 3,862,419, granted on October 19, 2010). The Complainant is the owner of the domain name <accenture.com> since August 30, 2000. The disputed domain name was registered on December 4, 2018 and the website is currently inactive. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant states that it owns trademark registrations in several jurisdictions for the trademarks ACCENTURE and ACCENTURE & design, and that the disputed domain name is nearly identical to its trademarks, being the only difference the inclusion of the letter “i”. According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name confuses and deliberately deceives Internet users, since the inclusion of a single letter was intended to create a slightly modified version of the Complainant’s domain name that was used to trick consumers into believing that the disputed domain name and the communications originating from email addresses created therefrom originated from the Complainant. The Complainant argues that when the disputed domain name was entered into a browser search bar, the Complainant’s purple arrow logo was displayed, along with the text “Accenture. New insights. Tangible outcomes. New Applied Now – accentuire.com”, which is identical to what displays the Complainant’s website and only confirms that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant’s trademarks. In addition, the address information provided by the Respondent was the address for the Complainant’s office in Manchester, England. The Complainant contends that the Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, it is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, it has not acquired any trademark rights related to the disputed domain name and is unfairly taking advantage of the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks, for commercial gain. According to the Complainant, the Respondent is not authorized to register and use the disputed domain name. Also, the Complainant informs and provides evidence that the Respondent acts in bad faith since it registered email addresses associated with the disputed domain name to send fraudulent communications to a Complainant’s client, requesting payment of invoices. Finally, the Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings As per paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The evidence presented demonstrates that the Complainant is the owner of the trademarks ACCENTURE and ACCENTURE & design in the United States and in several other countries, in distinct classes of services and products. The Panel finds that the Complainant has trademark rights for purposes of the Policy. The disputed domain name is almost identical to the Complainant’s trademarks. The addition of the letter “i” does not prevent confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks. The Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been proved by the Complainant, i.e. , the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent has not submitted a Response to the Complaint. There is no evidence that the Respondent has any authorization to use the Complainant’s trademarks or to register domain names similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name or that before any notice of the dispute the Respondent has made 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. Instead, there is evidence in the Complaint that the Respondent was using the disputed domain name to mislead Internet users for commercial gain. Based on the evidence in the Complaint, the Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain name, which incorporates the Complainant’s trademarks, does not correspond to a bona fide use of domain names under the Policy. For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied, i.e . the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The trademarks ACCENTURE and ACCENTURE & design are registered by the Complainant in several countries, including the United States and have been used since a long time. The Complainant’s trademarks and domain name are well known and predate the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is comprised by the Complainant’s trademarks with the inclusion of the letter ‘i’ and the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There is evidence in the Complaint that the disputed domain name was used with the intent to deceive the Complainant’s clients to believe they were negotiating with the Complainant, and that the Respondent obviously was aware of the Complainant’s mark when it registered the disputed domain name. Therefore, this Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks and misleading Internet users to believe that the disputed domain name and the communications originated from fraudulent email addresses belong to or are associated with the Complainant. This Panel finds that the Respondent’s intention of taking undue advantage of the Complainant’s trademarks as described in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy has been demonstrated. For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the conditions of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy have been satisfied, i.e ., 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, <accentuire.com>, be transferred to the Complainant. Mario Soerensen Garcia Sole Panelist Date: April 22, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around accentuire.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.