WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Accenture Global Services Limited v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, DomainsByP / I S, ICS INC Case No. D2018-2726 1. The Parties

Complainant is Accenture Global Services Limited of Dublin, Ireland, represented by DLA Piper US LLP, United States of America (“United States”).

Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, DomainsByP of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States / I S, ICS INC of Grand Cayman, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 28, 2018. On November 28, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 11, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on November 30, 2018 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 30, 2018.

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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 5, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 25, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on December 27, 2018.

The Center appointed Dinant T. L. Oosterbaan as the sole panelist in this matter on January 2, 2019. 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 an international company providing various services, including management consulting, technology services and outsourcing services. Complainant has offices and operations in more than 200 cities in 56 countries.

According to the evidence submitted by Complainant, Complainant owns multiple registrations for the trademark ACCENTURE, including:

- European Union Trade Mark ACCENTURE No. 001925650, registered on October 9, 2002,

- United States Trademark ACCENTURE No. 3,091,811, registered on May 16, 2006.

In addition, Complainant has multiple websites consisting of the ACCENTURE mark.

The Domain Name was registered on August 15, 2016. The Domain Name resolves to a website containing pay-per-click links.

The trademark registrations of Complainant were issued prior to the registration of the Domain Name. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ACCENTURE mark. The only difference between the Domain Name and Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark is that the Domain Name merely replaces the letter “n” with the letter “b” in the ACCENTURE mark. According to Complainant the ACCENTURE mark is distinctive and well-known. Complainant asserts that replacing one letter for another in a domain name generally constitutes “typosquatting” and is insufficient to materially distinguish a domain name from another’s trademark. According to Complainant Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name constitutes “typosquatting” and fails to meaningfully distinguish it from Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark.

According to Complainant Respondent has no legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Complainant submits that Respondent has made no bona fide offering of goods or services in connection with the Domain Name. The Domain Name automatically redirects to various third-party websites, including a website that attempts to trick consumers into downloading malware onto their computers. Complainant submits that a domain name that resolves to third-party websites does not constitute use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. In addition Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use Complainant’s ACCENTURE mark or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the mark. Moreover, Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name. There is also no indication that Respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Domain Nam