Westmore · UDRP DecisionAccienture.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <accienture.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the ACCENTURE trademark because it added an extra letter “i,” constituting typosquatting. The Complainant established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, which the Respondent did not rebut. Although the Panel stated that the passive-holding doctrine might not satisfactorily apply, it found bad-faith registration and use based on the well-known and distinctive mark, the deliberate misspelling, the Respondent’s likely knowledge of the mark, and the unrebutted inference that the Respondent intended to appear affiliated with the Complainant and trade on its reputation.
The timeline behind accienture.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 accienture.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates that a single inserted letter in a famous or distinctive mark can constitute straightforward typosquatting. It is also notable because the Panel did not treat passive holding as automatically dispositive. Instead, it found bad-faith use from the overall circumstances, including the distinctive misspelling, likely prior knowledge, absence of rebuttal, and inferred intention to create an appearance of affiliation.
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. Mark Gregory Case No. D2019-1334 1. The Parties The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited, Ireland, represented by McDermott Will & Emery LLP, United States of America. The Respondent is Mark Gregory, Canada. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <accienture.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 7, 2019. On June 11, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On June 11, 2019, 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 proceedings commenced on June 19, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 9, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 11, 2019. The Center appointed Linda Chang as the sole panelist in this matter on July 17, 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 engaged in providing management consulting, technology services, and outsourcing services on an international basis, and has been extensively using the mark ACCENTURE in connection with its services and specialties since 2001. The Complainant is well recognized for its business services and has been listed in the Fortune Global 500 for the past 16 years, and Interbrand’s Best Global Brands Report since 2002. The Complainant owns numerous registrations for the mark ACCENTURE in more than 140 countries, with the earliest trademark registered on December 24, 2002 in the United States of America. The Respondent registered the Domain Name on May 8, 2019. The Domain Name does not resolve to an active website currently. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends as follows: (1) The Domain Name is nearly identical to the mark ACCENTURE, with the mere addition of the letter “ï” before the first letter “e” in the ACCENTURE mark. The Domain Name creates a typographical misspelling when compared to the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark. (2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent is neither affiliated with nor has been licensed or permitted to use the ACCENTURE mark or any domain names incorporating the ACCENTURE mark. Besides, the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name. The Respondent’s inactive holding of the Domain Name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. (3) The Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. Given the Complainant’s worldwide reputation, the Respondent was or should have been aware of the ACCENTURE mark prior to registering the Domain Name. The Respondent’s passive holding of the Domain Name is an indication of using the Domain Name in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has registered trademark rights in the ACCENTURE mark. The Domain Name contains a variation of the ACCENTURE trademark and slightly differs by adding an extra letter “i” before the first letter “e” in the ACCENTURE mark. The Panel holds that the Respondent’s conduct constitutes “typosquatting”, which creates a virtually and phonetically confusingly similar mark to the Complainant’s trademark and consequently could not avoid a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the ACCENTURE mark. See Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington , WIPO Case No. D2002-0775 ; Oxygen Media, LLC v . Primary Source , WIPO Case No. D2000-0362 ; and AltaVista Company v. Saeid Yomtobian , WIPO Case No. D2000-0937 . As an addition of the suffixes such as “.com” being the generic Top-Level Domain (the “gTLD”) is generally disregarded under the first element, the Panel accordingly holds the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark ACCENTURE. The Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has demonstrated rights in the ACCENTURE trademark, and confirms that the Respondent has not been granted a license or any other rights to use the ACCENTURE trademark as part of any domain name or for any other purpose. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established prima facie evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, and the burden of production thus shifts to the Respondent. See International Hospitality Management – IHM S.p.A. v. Enrico Callegari Ecostudio , WIPO Case No. D2002-0683 . The Respondent, however, has failed to file a response to prove its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. Based on the evidence presented on the record, there is no indication that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name or making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. For all of the above reasons, the Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant has been extensively using and promoting the ACCENTURE mark throughout the world since 2001 including in Canada where the Respondent resides. Considering that the ACCENTURE mark has been vested with significant goodwill and is well-known, the Panel finds it unlikely that the Respondent registered the Domain Name without knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel is convinced that such awareness amounts to opportunistic bad faith registration. See Deutsche Bank AG v. Diego-Arturo Bruckner , WIPO Case No. D2000-0277 . The Complainant contends that the Respondent has held the Domain Name for approximately one month but has not used it for any legitimate purpose, which constitutes passive holding of the Domain Name. Although the Panel holds that the passive holding doctrine might not satisfactorily apply to the current dispute, the Panel agrees that use in bad faith could be demonstrated after taking all circumstances into consideration, including the misspelling of the distinctive ACCENTURE trademark and the Respondent’s failure to rebut the contentions of the Complainant. The Panel finds it reasonable to infer that the Respondent intends to appear affiliated with the Complainant and trade off the reputation of the ACCENTURE trademark when registering and using the Domain Name. In light of the above facts and reasons, the Panel therefore determines that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith pursuant to 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 Domain Name, <accienture.com>, be transferred to the Complainant. Linda Chang Sole Panelist Date: July 31, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around accienture.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.