NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM
URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Accenture Global Services Limited v. shanshan xiong
Claim Number: FA1409001581204
DOMAIN NAME
<accenture.club>
PARTIES
| Complainant: Accenture Global Services Limited Jeffrey J Fridman of Dublin, Ireland | |
|
Complainant Representative: Accenture Global Services Limited
Jeffrey J Fridman of Chicago, IL, United States of America
|
| Respondent: shanshan xiong of liuzhou, II, China | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
| Registries: .CLUB DOMAINS, LLC | |
| Registrars: GoDaddy.com, Inc. |
EXAMINER
| The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding. | |
| Ms. Kateryna Oliinyk, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
| Complainant Submitted: September 23, 2014 | |
| Commencement: September 25, 2014 | |
| Default Date: October 13, 2014 | |
| Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules"). |
RELIEF SOUGHT
| Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration. |
STANDARD OF REVIEW
| Clear and convincing evidence. |
FINDINGS and DISCUSSION
| Findings of Fact: Under URS 9.1. the evidences will be the materials submitted with the Complaint and the Response, and those materials will serve as the entire records used by the Examiner to make a Determination. URS 8.2. reads that the burden of proof shall be clear an convincing evidences. Under URS 8.6. if the Examiner finds that all three standards provided for by URS 8.1. are satisfied by clear and convincing evidences and that there is no genuine contestable issue, then the Examiner shall issue a Determination in favour of the Complainant. Under URS 6.1. if at the expiration of the 14 Calendar Day Response period (or extended period if granted), the Registrant does not submit an answer, the Complaint proceeds to Default. Further URS 6.3. reads that all Default cases proceed to Examination for review on the merits of the claim. Complainant is a global business that provides consulting, technology and outsourcing services under the name ACCENTURE and owns the ACCENTURE trademark and company name. The Complainant has used the ACCENTURE Mark in connection with such services for over thirteen years. The Complainant has registered the ACCENTURE trademark in well over 100 jurisdictions throughout the world. The Complainant holds valid US trademark registration for the word mark “ACCENTURE”, U.S. reg. No. 3,091,811 (registered May 16, 2006). Through Complainant’s longstanding use and significant marketing efforts, the ACCENTURE Mark has become one of the most valuable marks in the world. Interbrand’s 2013 Best Global Brands Report ranks the ACCENTURE Mark as number 41 as a global brand. As a result of the above extensive use and promotion, the ACCENTURE Mark has become distinctive and well-known globally. The Respondent has not duly served the Response. According to the e-mail correspondence between the Complainant and the Respondent, the Respondent has never been granted the right to use the ACCENTURE mark and he is not affiliated with the Complainant. According to the e-mail communication, the Respondent insisted that he was entitled to compensation “to protect the network brand of Accenture” and offered the Complainant to sell the domain name <accenture.club> for the price in excess of out-of-pocket costs. |
|
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.
[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar
to a word mark: Determined: Finding for Complainant The Examiner determines that the Respondent is not commonly known by the ACCENTURE name and he has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark in a domain name or otherwise. The domain name is neither generic nor descriptive. Post parking page would not of itself confer rights or legitimate interest arising from a "bona fide offering of goods or services" or from "legitimate noncommercial or fair use" of the domain name. In light of that the Examiner does not admit the legitimate interest of the Respondent to use a trademark that belongs to a third party. Therefore, the Examiner finds that the Complaint meets URS requirement of 1.2.6.2. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant The Examiner determines that the Respondent is not commonly known by the ACCENTURE name and he has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark in a domain name or otherwise. The domain name is neither generic nor descriptive. Post parking pages would not of itself confer rights or legitimate interest arising from a "bona fide offering of goods or services" or from "legitimate noncommercial or fair use" of the domain name. In light of that the Examiner does not admit the legitimate interest of the Respondent to use a trademark that belongs to a third party. Therefore, the Examiner finds that the Complaint meets URS requirement of 1.2.6.2.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant The Respondent registered the domain name <accenture.club> in bad faith for the sole purpose of selling it to Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs that is supported by the e-mail communication between the Complainant and the Respondent which is on the record. During these communications, the Respondent insisted that he was entitled to compensation “to protect the network brand of Accenture”. Thus, the Respondent’s actions in connection with the domain name <accenture.club>, including his own stated admissions, make clear that he was aware of the mark ACCENTURE and that he registered the domain name <accenture.club> for the sole purpose of profiting from its sale. The Examiner therefore concludes that the registration of the domain name <accenture.club> was made in full knowledge of the trademark primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the registered ACCENTURE trademark, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name, and amounts to registration and use in bad faith under URS 1.2.6.3 (a). FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods. The Examiner finds as follows:
DETERMINATION
After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant
has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing
evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be SUSPENDED for
the duration of the registration:
|
Ms. Kateryna Oliinyk Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page