Westmore · UDRP DecisionAcceennture.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <acceennture.com> after finding all three UDRP elements satisfied. The domain was a typographical variation of the ACCENTURE mark created by repeating the letters “e” and “n.” The Panel found no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent lacked authorization, was not known by the domain, and used it for sponsored links. Registration and use in bad faith were established based on the prior worldwide reputation of the ACCENTURE marks, apparent phishing emails impersonating Complainant and seeking payments, and pay-per-click use.
The timeline behind acceennture.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 acceennture.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
This decision illustrates a combined typosquatting, phishing, and pay-per-click fact pattern. The duplicated internal letters did not prevent recognition of the ACCENTURE mark, while the apparent use of domain-based email to impersonate Complainant and seek payments supplied particularly significant evidence of bad-faith use. The separate sponsored-link use reinforced the absence of a legitimate interest and the commercial character of the conduct.
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, Inc. / Ricky Yayo Case No. D2020-3217 1. The Parties Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited, Ireland, represented by McDermott Will & Emery LLP, United States of America (“United States” or “US”). Respondent is WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Ricky Yayo, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <acceennture.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 December 1, 2020. On December 1, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 1, 2020, 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 December 15, 2020 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 December 17, 2020. 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 21, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 10, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on January 21, 2021. The Center appointed Isabelle Leroux as the sole panelist in this matter on February 5, 2021. 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 a multinational business that provides strategy, consulting, digital, technology and operations services under the name “ACCENTURE”. It owns a portfolio of registered trademarks for the ACCENTURE mark in more than 140 countries, including the following US trademarks: - ACCENTURE No 3,091,811, registered on May 16, 2006 for various goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41, and 42 and duly renewed; - ACCENTURE No. 2,665,373, registered on December 24, 2002 for various goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41, and 42 and duly renewed; - ACCENTURE No. 3,340,780, registered on November 20, 2007 for various goods and services in classes 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, and 28 and duly renewed; - ACCENTURE No. 2,884,125, registered on September 14, 2004 for various goods and services in classes 18, 25, and 28 and duly renewed (hereafter together, the “Trademarks”). Complainant also owns the domain name <accenture.com>, registered on August 29, 2000, and operates the corresponding website. The disputed domain name <acceennture.com> was registered on November 18, 2020, and was resolving to registrar parking website with pay-per-click links. Complainant claims that Respondent was using the disputed domain name to perpetuate a phishing scam. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant (i) Complainant submits that the disputed domain name <acceennture.com> is confusingly similar to the Trademarks and, in particular, underlines that the mere addition of the letters “e” and “n” in the middle of the mark ACCENTURE constitutes “typosquatting” and is insufficient to materially distinguish a domain name from another’s trademark. (ii) Complainant further contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. According to Complainant, Respondent is not commonly known by the name “ACCENTURE” and is neither affiliated with, nor has been licensed or permitted to use Complainant’s Trademarks. Furthermore, Complainant submits that Respondent has used the disputed domain name in relation to at least two different email addresses, one of them having been used to perpetuate a phishing scam. (iii) Lastly, Complainant argues that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. In particular, Complainant submits that, considering its worldwide reputation and the ubiquitous presence of the Trademarks on the Internet, Respondent knew or should have known the existence of the Complainant’s rights at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. (iv) Moreover, Complainant contends that the disputed domain name resolves to a hosted website that promotes sponsored click-through links and that Respondent has used the domain name <acceennture.com> to pose as Complainant and to perpetuate a phishing scam. According to Complainant, such uses show bad faith use of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Complainant has provided evidence that it has rights to the ACCENTURE mark, which is registered as a trademark worldwide, in particular in the United-States. Complainant has also submitted evidence that the Trademarks are famous globally and have enjoyed such notoriety before Respondent registered the disputed domain name. In comparing the disputed domain name <acceennture.com> with the Trademarks, the Panel finds that the Trademarks are entirely included in the disputed domain name, the latter merely featuring the repetition, in the middle, of the letters “e” and “n”, which is typical of “typosquatting” and not sufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity with the Trademarks ( WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.9 ). Furthermore, it is well established that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” in a domain name is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test ( WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.11 ). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademarks and that Complainant has fulfilled the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Numerous UDRP panels have found that, even though Complainant bears the general burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP, the burden of production shifts to Respondent once Complainant makes a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. See Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd. , WIPO Case No. D2003-0455 . Hence after Complainant has made a prima facie showing that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, it will be deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP, when Respondent fails to submit a response. In this case, Complainant brings forward the following elements: - Respondent is neither affiliated with, nor has been licensed or permitted to use Complainant’s Trademarks; - There is no indication that Respondent, is known under the disputed domain name <acceennture.com>; - The disputed domain name has resolved to a hosted website promoting sponsored click-through links. In light of the foregoing, the Panel does not find any indications that Respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, or has rights or legitimate interests in any other way in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Given the long use and worldwide reputation of Complainant’s ACCENTURE Trademarks, the Panel considers that Respondent knew of should have known of said Trademarks at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name <acceennture.com>. Such knowledge is sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name was registered by Respondent in bad faith. Furthermore, Respondent appears to have used the disputed domain name to engage in a phishing scam, by sending emails using the disputed domain name, posing as Complainant while attempting to collect payments. Complainant also provides evidence that the disputed domain name has resolved to a hosted website promoting sponsored click-through links and websites. The Panel finds that these uses of the disputed domain name engage into a phishing scam and to generate revenue from Internet advertising can be construed as evidence that the disputed domain name is used in bad faith. Taking into account all of the above, it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain names by Respondent that would not be illegitimate. Therefore, 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 <acceennture.com> be transferred to Complainant. Isabelle Leroux Sole Panelist Date: February 19, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around acceennture.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.