Westmore · UDRP DecisionAccenturexchange.fun
The Panel ordered transfer of <accenturexchange.fun>. It found the ACCENTURE trademark recognizable in the domain despite the addition of “xchange” and the “.fun” gTLD. The Respondent’s use of the domain for a cryptocurrency investment platform and related financial services did not establish rights or legitimate interests and instead supported a finding of intentional commercial attraction through confusion. The Panel also relied on the Respondent’s registration of the domain approximately three months after an earlier nearly identical UDRP decision concerning <accenturexchange.com>.
The timeline behind accenturexchange.fun
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 accenturexchange.fun — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates the significance of a repeat registration following a nearly identical adverse UDRP ruling. The Panel did not rely only on the incorporation of the ACCENTURE mark and the competing commercial website; it also treated the timing after WIPO Case No. D2021-1794 as reinforcing the absence of legitimate interests and the Respondent’s knowledge and bad faith.
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. Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Thanh minh Dinh, Links45guide Case No. D2021-4372 1. The Parties The Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited, Ireland, represented by McDermott Will & Emery LLP, United States of America (“United States”). The Respondent is Privacy Service Provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Thanh minh Dinh, Links45guide, Nigeria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <accenturexchange.fun> 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 24, 2021. On December 27, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 27, 2021, 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 December 29, 2021 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 December 30, 2021. 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 January 13, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 2, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any formal Response. However, on December 29, 2021 and January 14, 2022 the Respondent sent informal communications to the Center asking for further information. Accordingly, the Center sent the Commencement of Panel Appointment Process on February 16, 2022. The Center appointed Alfred Meijboom as the sole panelist in this matter on February 24, 2022. 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 an international business that provides a broad range of services and solutions in strategy, consulting, digital, technology, and operations under the trademark and company name ACCENTURE. Since January 2001, the Complainant has extensively used and continues to use the trademark ACCENTURE in connection with various services and specialties, including management consulting and business process services, which comprises various aspects of business operations such as supply chain and logistics services, as well as technology services and outsourcing services. The Complainant has offices and operations in more than 200 cities in 51 countries. The Complainant owns numerous registrations for the trademark ACCENTURE in various jurisdictions, including United States registration No. 3,091,811, registered on May 16, 2006 (the “Trademark”). The disputed domain name was registered on November 4, 2021. The disputed domain name resolves to a website advertising a “cryptocurrency investment platform” and other financial services that are related to, or have the potential to compete with, the Complainant’s financial services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has established all three elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not formally respond to the Complainant’s contentions. However, the Respondent sent informal communications to the Center asking for further information on December 29, 2021 and January 14, 2022. C. Parties’ previous dispute The Parties to the present case had recently been involved in a nearly identical case which was decided under the Policy ( Accenture Global Services Limited v. Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Thanh Minh Dinh , WIPO Case No. D2021-1794 ), which was decided on August 12, 2021. According to this decision, the facts of the matter, including the use of the disputed domain name to advertise a “cryptocurrency investment platform”, as well as the Complainant’s contentions, are identical to the facts of the present matter, with the exception that the generic Top-Level domain (“gTLD”) of disputed domain name in WIPO Case No. D2021-1794 was “.com”, while being “.fun” in the present case. As in WIPO Case No. D2021-1794 , the Respondent sent brief communications to the Center alleging that he did not understand the proceedings and asking for more information. The panel in WIPO Case No. D2021-1794 held that the Complainant satisfied the three requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and ordered the domain name <accenturexchange.com> be transferred to the Complainant. 6. Discussion and Findings As the facts and allegations in WIPO Case No. D2021-1794 are nearly identical to those in the present matter, and the Panel in the present matter concurs with the arguments in support of the transfer in the domain name of WIPO Case No. D2021-1794 , the Panel accordingly finds the Complainant has satisfied its burden in this case, as briefly explained below. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established that it has rights in the Trademark. The Trademark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name, and the addition of the term “xchange” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. According to section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“ WIPO Overview 3.0 ”) a gTLD is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test, so that the disputed domain name’s gTLD “.fun” does not change the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark. Accordingly, the first requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is met. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has put forward a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which has not been rebutted by the Respondent. Use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name for a competing website does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial fair use. Furthermore, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name nearly three months after WIPO Case No. D2021-1794 was decided. This fact reinforces the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (see sections 2.5.2(iv) and 2.5.3 of WIPO Overview 3.0 ). The Panel in the present matter is therefore also satisfied that the second requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is met. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Registration and use of the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Trademark is clear evidence of bad faith. Bad faith is further affirmed by the Respondent’s knowledge of the Trademark and registration of the disputed domain name approximately three months after the decision in WIPO Case No. D2021-1794 (see sections 3.1.2 and 3.2.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0 ). The Panel in the present matter is therefore also satisfied that the third requirement of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is met. 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 <accenturexchange.fun> be transferred to the Complainant. Alfred Meijboom Sole Panelist Date: March 10, 2022
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around accenturexchange.fun
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.