Accenture Global Services Limited v. azan tengku et al.
Claim Number: FA1403001549011
Complainant: Accenture Global Services Limited of Dublin, Ireland.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: Accenture Global Services Limited of Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.
Respondent: azan tengku of Singapore, International, SG.
Respondent Representative:
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: VENTURES Registry
Registrars: GoDaddy.com, LLC
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.
Luz Helena Villamil Jimenez, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: March 17, 2014
Commencement: March 18, 2014
Default Date: April 2, 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") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
The complaint at hand refers to the domain name accenture.ventures registered by azan tengku of Singapore, International, SG.
In accordance with the provisions of URS, Complainant claims (i) that the domain name accenture.ventures is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; (ii) that The Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name, and (iii) that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
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.
RIGHTS OVER AN IDENTICAL OR SIMILAR TRADEMARK
Complainant states that it is an international business that provides consulting, technology and outsourcing services under the name ACCENTURE and owns the ACCENTURE trademark and company name, which has been using for over thirteen years. Complainant asserts that it owns registrations for the ACCENTURE mark in more than 100 jurisdictions throughout the world. Furthermore, Complainant adds that the ACCENTURE Mark has become one of the most valuable marks in the world, which has therefore become distinctive and well-known globally.
Complainant submitted copies of the registrations for the trademark ACCENTURE before the United States Patent & Trademark Office. The Examiner points out that even though the registration copies submitted by the Complainant show ownership of the trademark by Accenture Global Services GmbH of Switzerland, an ex officio review of the status of said registrations at the website of the USPTO conducted by the Examiner in fulfillment of the duty to verify whether the Complainant has made false claims, revealed that presently the registrations submitted in support of the complaint do stand at present in the name of Accenture Global Services Limited of Dublin, Ireland.
Based on the foregoing the Examiner finds that the complaint meets the URS requirement of 1.2.6.1.
NO LEGITIMATE RIGHT OR INTEREST TO THE DOMAIN NAME
Complainant states that the Registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name because upon information and belief, Respondent was familiar with the ACCENTURE Mark at the time he obtained registration of the domain; that the domain entirely incorporates the ACCENTURE mark, being the only difference the gTLD .ventures which is irrelevant, and that Respondent has made no bona fide offering of goods or services and has never been licensed on otherwise permitted by Complainant to use the ACCENTURE mark.
Complainant further mentions in his complaint that on March 11, 2014 it visited the accenture.ventures site and found that the associated website featured a blurred image of Complainant’s stylized ACCENTURE logo with the message “PROTECT YOUR BRAND. With the current release of the GLD: ventures, brands are not able to customize their URL, to reflect the financial services they provide. Don’t let others, HIJACK your BRANDNAME. Enter your email address below if you are interested in purchasing: Accenture.ventures.”
Upon review of the screenshot submitted by Complainant of the accenture.ventures
site, the Examiner deems that said use of the domain by Respondent does evidence a lack of rights and legitimate interests, and therefore the Examiner finds that the complaint meets URS requirement of 1.2.6.2.
DOMAIN REGISTERED AND USED IN BAD FAITH
Complainant states that the domain was registered in bad faith, for the sole purpose of selling it to Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs. To explain this statement Complainant asserts that on March 11, 2014 Complainant sent a letter to Respondent via email requesting that the domain be transferred in exchange for reimbursement of Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs related to the domain. As stated by Complainant, in a series of subsequent communications Respondent refused said request and asked for compensation well in excess of such costs, and insisted that he was entitled to compensation for “services rendered” to Complainant.
Although Complainant did not submit evidence of the aforementioned exchange of correspondence, the Examiner finds that the lack of response to the complaint by Respondent does appear to be a confirmation of the statement by the Complainant. Moreover, as regards the statement of the Complainant concerning the fact that on March 13, 2014 Respondent removed the content previously at the domain and began forwarding traffic directly to Accenture’s primary website http://www.accenture.com/us-en/pages/index.aspx, the Examiner finds this statement of Complainant is true since indeed, an intent to surf the http://www.accenture.ventures immediately redirects to the website http://www.accenture.com/us-en/pages/index.aspx. Based on the foregoing, the Examiner finds that the Complaint meets URS requirement of 1.2.6.3.
The Examiner, after a careful study of the case, finds that the Complaint was not brought in an abuse of this proceeding, and it does not contains material falsehoods.
After reviewing the Complainant’s 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 names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
Luz Helena Villamil Jimenez, Examiner
Dated: April 02, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page