WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Intacct Corporation v. Mark John Case No. D2018-1134 1. The Parties

Complainant is Intacct Corporation of San Jose, California, United States of America (“United States”), represented by SILKA Law AB, Sweden.

Respondent is Mark John of Key West, Florida, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 19, 2018. On May 22, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 23, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the registrant’s contact details.

The Center verified that the 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 May 29, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 18, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on June 20, 2018.

The Center appointed Michael A. Albert as the sole panelist in this matter on July 6, 2018. 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 headquartered in San Jose, California and serves thousands of businesses in North America. Complainant develops accounting and financial management software solutions and provides general ledger, cash management, revenue recognition, inventory, purchasing, vendor management, financial consolidation, and financial reporting systems services.

Complainant owns two United States federal registrations for the mark INTACCT. The first registration issued on July 17, 2001 and is for a service mark for “electronically updating and organizing the accounting records of businesses and individuals” and “electronic storage of the accounting records of businesses and individuals.” The second registration issued on October 2, 2012 and is for a service mark for “business consulting services in the field of financial management” and “providing temporary use of on-line nondownloadable computer software for financial management and accounting to store, manage, track, analyze and report financial information in order to streamline financial processes, gain greater financial visibility and establish strong financial controls.” Complainant, although currently operating under the name Sage Intacct, owns such trademarks under its initial name, the Intacct Corporation.

The disputed domain name was initially registered under the privacy service VistaPrint Technologies Ltd and expired in 2016. Since January 25, 2018, Respondent has held the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

First, Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademarks, INTACCT. More specifically, Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is a “typovariation” of Complainant’s INTACCT marks, created “merely by adding the letter a.” Complainant adds that the inclusion of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not add distinctiveness to the disputed domain name.

Second, Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant argues that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Nor has Respondent demonstrated that it uses, or has prepared to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. Complainant also points out that an Internet search for “INTACCT” results in links to Complainant’s official website. Had Respondent compl