Accentureportal.com

The timeline behind accentureportal.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Accenture Global Services Limited v. Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd Case No. D2025-5403 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 Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <accentureportal.com> is registered with Above.com Pty Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 24, 2025. On December 26, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 30, 2025, 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 (above_privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 2, 2026, 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 January 7, 2026. 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 8, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 28, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 4, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Assen Alexiev as the sole panelist in this matter on February 9, 2026. 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. It began operating under the brand ACCENTURE on January 1, 2001. In 2002, ACCENTURE was ranked at No. 53 in the Interbrand’s Best Global Brands Report and valued at more than USD 5 billion. The Complainant has offices and operations in more than 200 cities in over 120 countries. Its official website is located at the domain name <accenture.com>, registered since August 29, 2000. The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations of the sign ACCENTURE (the “ACCENTURE trademark”) in various jurisdictions, including the following representative registrations: − the United States trademark ACCENTURE (word) with registration No. 3091811, applied for on October 26, 2000 and registered on May 16, 2006 with priority as of October 6, 2000 based on Benelux trademark with registration No. 0675941, for goods and services in International Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42; - the United States trademark (combined) with registration No. 2665373, applied for on November 17, 2000 and registered on December 24, 2002 with priority as of November 24, 2000, based on Benelux trademark with reg. No. 0692526, currently valid for services in International Classes 35, 36, 41 and 42; - the Indian trademark ACCENTURE (word) with registration No. 967046, registered on October 30, 2000 for goods in International Class 9; and - the European Union Trade Mark (combined) with registration No. 001958370, applied for on November 16, 2000 and registered on August 14, 2002 with priority as of November 14, 2000 based on Benelux trademark with registration No. 977806, for goods and services in International Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 39, 41, and 42. The disputed domain name was registered on November 26, 2001. Internet browsers currently display warning messages when an attempt is made to access it. This is not the first proceeding between the Parties under the Policy. They have already been involved in a number of prior proceedings, including Accenture Global Services Limited v. Transure Enterprise Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2024-0848, for the domain name <accnture.com>; Accenture Global Services Limited v. Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2024-0676, for the domain name <accneture.com>; Accenture Global Services Limited v. above_privacy / Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2021-2566, for the domain name <accenutre.com>; Accenture Global Services Limited v. above_privacy / Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2022-3020, for the domain name <accenturealumini.com>; and Accenture Global Services Limited v. Host Master, Transure Enterprise Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2019-1966, for the domain name <accemture.com>. In all of these cases the Respondent was in default and was found to have acted in bad faith. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ACCENTURE trademark, because it includes this trademark in combination with the dictionary word “portal”, which according to it suggests that the disputed domain name directs to a portal resource of the Complainant. page 3 According to the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, because it is not affiliated with the Complainant and has not been licensed to use the ACCENTURE trademark or any domain name incorporating this trademark. The Complainant maintains that “ACCENTURE” is not a generic or descriptive term, but is globally famous and has acquired secondary meaning through the Complainant’s continuous use of this trademark in connection with its goods and services. The Complainant adds that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and has registered the disputed domain name to trade on the value of the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant points out that the disputed domain name results in Internet browser security warnings that the site has been “blocked due to a security threat”. According to the Complainant, this shows that the disputed domain name is used for purposes that could harm visitors to the associated website. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It points out that the disputed domain name was registered over a year after the Complainant filed its first United States trademark application for the ACCENTURE trademark and at least ten months after the Complainant started operating under the same trademark. According to the Complainant, given the reputation and presence of the ACCENTURE trademark on the Internet, the Respondent must have been aware of it prior to registering the disputed domain name. The Complainant points out that the Respondent has demonstrated its awareness of the Complainant’s trademark and a pattern of bad faith conduct, as it has already been found to have registered and used various other ACCENTURE-variant domain names in bad faith. The Complainant adds that the demonstrated use of the disputed domain name for purposes associated with security risks is evidence of bad faith registration and use. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of the ACCENTURE trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. This trademark was registered in the United States and the European Union after the disputed domain name. However, as discussed in section 1.1.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, the fact that a domain name may have been registered before a complainant has acquired trademark rights does not by itself preclude a complainant’s standing to file a UDRP case, nor a panel’s finding of identity or confusing similarity under the first element. The entirety of the ACCENTURE trademark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ACCENTURE trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms (here, “portal”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the ACCENTURE trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. page 4 B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The only information about the activities of the Respondent is that it was also the respondent in a number of other proceedings under the Policy which were initiated by the Complainant. All these proceedings involved domain names that were misspelled versions of the ACCENTURE trademark, and the Respondent was found to have targeted the same trademark in bad faith. The disputed domain name prominently displays the distinctive ACCENTURE trademark, and its composition creates an appearance that it represents an online platform of the Complainant. There is no evidence in the case file about any use of the disputed domain name apart from the fact that it is blocked by Internet browsers, which display security warnings. This suggests that the disputed domain name may have been used in connection with illicit or harmful activities. Considering the above, it appears as more likely than not that the Respondent has registered and kept the disputed domain name targeting the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark in an attempt to secure for itself certain illegitimate commercial or other advantage. This does not support a finding that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. What is specific in the present proceeding is that the disputed domain name was registered after the filing of the applications for registration of the Complainant’s trademark in the United States and the European Union, but before the completion of the registration procedure. This raises the question of whether the Respondent knew about the Complainant’s trademark when it registered the disputed domain name and whether it registered it in bad faith. As discussed in section 3.8.2 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, in certain limited circumstances where the facts of the case establish that the respondent’s intent in registering the domain name was to unfairly capitalize on the complainant’s nascent (typically as yet unregistered) trademark rights, panels have been prepared to find that the respondent has acted in bad faith. Such scenarios include registration of a domain name: (i) shortly before or after announcement of a corporate merger, (ii) further to the respondent’s insider knowledge (e.g., page 5 a former employee), (iii) further to significant media attention (e.g., in connection with a product launch or prominent event), or (iv) following the complainant’s filing of a trademark application. The Complainant filed applications for the trademark ACCENTURE in the United States and in the European Union in 2000, and it was registered there with priority dates that precede the date of registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant began using this mark on January 1, 2001, and it was valued at more than USD 5 billion by Interbrands in 2002. The fact that it received such valuation shows that the brand had been extensively used and promoted since its adoption one year earlier and had already become widely popular. The Respondent has not submitted a Response and has not provided any plausible explanation about the registration of the disputed domain name, which combines the distinctive ACCENTURE trademark with the dictionary word “platform” and suggests that it represents an online platform operated by the Complainant. The Respondent’s conduct is notable in that it has targeted the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark through at least five other domain name registrations, which demonstrates its awareness of the trademark (albeit at later points in time, when the other domain names were registered), and a pattern of bad faith conduct under paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy. Taken together, the above circumstances support a conclusion that it is more likely than not that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s nascent ACCENTURE trademark when registering the disputed domain name, and that its intent at the time was to unfairly capitalise on its goodwill. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark, the composition of the disputed domain name, the absence of a Response, the overall conduct of the Respondent targeting the Complainant’s trademark through various domain name registrations, and finds that in the circumstances of thi s case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 <accentureportal.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Assen Alexiev/ Assen Alexiev Sole Panelist Date: February 16, 2026

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.