Now, with reference to the grounds of the present resolution, and in agreement with the provisions of the paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy, there are three elements the Complainant must prove in order to have the domain name registered by the Respondent assigned in their favor.
These elements are:
(i) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
(ii) The Respondent has no right or legitimate interests in respect to the domain name, and,
(iii) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Now if we take into account the brief filed by the Complainant as well as the documents attached thereof, it is clear that the disputed domain name “arcelormittaldistributionsolutionsukltd.com” is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant´s Trade Mark ARCELORMITTAL, on which it holds exclusive rights.
Regarding the need to prove that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the registered Trademarks in which the Complainant has rights, the Complainant has proved that they are the owner of the ARCELORMITTAL brand since they have already submitted as evidence the certification of the brand registry of the World Intellectual Property Organization (hereinafter the WIPO) in which they appear as owner thereof since the registration date 03/08/2007 until the expiration date 3/08/2017.
Likewise, they have certified that they are the owner of the domain names “Arcelormittal.BIZ”, “arcelormittal.co.uk”, “arcelormittal.com”, “ARCELORMITTAL.COM”, “ARCELORMITTAL.MOBI”, “arcelormittal.net”, “ARCELORMITTAL.NET”, “ARCELORMITTAL.ORG”, “ARCELOR-MITTAL.BIZ”, “arcelor-mittal.com”, “ARCELOR-MITTAL.COM”, “ARCELOR-MITTAL.INFO”, “arcelor-mittal.net”, “ARCELOR-MITTAL.NET”, “ARCELOR-MITTAL.ORG”, thereby attaching the documentation taken from the page www.Whois-search.com where it is shown that the Complainant appears as owner thereof.
The domain object of this conflict “arcelormittaldistributionsolutionsukltd.com” contains the exact name of the company.
The fact that it combines the exact name of the company with generic words such as “distribution”, “solution”, “uk” or ldt” is not sufficient in order to remedy the fact that name is confusingly similar. Since it can be easily associated with the activity undertaken by the Complainant and with which it is distinguished in the market, this causes evident confusion for the consumer due to the fact that they may understand that it is a derivative brand and that the domain name is deemed property of the Complainant or a web page belonging to a licensee or authorized agent.
In conformity with the need to prove the second requisite related to whether the domain name has been registered by the Respondent who lacks legitimate rights or interests thereof. We highlight that firstly the Complainant affirms that the Respondent does not carry out any activity nor business related thereto and moreover they are not affiliated with the Complainant nor do they possess any license or authorization that guarantees it to make use or request the registry of the domain name in dispute. For which the Respondent cannot use the Complainant’s domain name without damaging rights of the Complainant. In this sense and due to the facts that the Respondent has not responded to this proceeding, there is no evidence of the transfer of use of trademark to the owner of the domain name nor he has demonstrated any right or legitimate interest.
Likewise and in contrast with the Respondent, it must be noted that the Complainant enjoys considerable renown and is fully recognized by the name of ARCELORMITTAL since just as we have set forth in the factual background section of this decision, the company was established in 2006 and since then has developed its business thereby constituting one of the largest steel producing company in the world, a market leader for the use of steel in construction of appliances, automation and packaging with a presence in more than 60 countries. As proof of this a simple Google search yields a never-ending array of results related to the Complainant´s company just as this arbitrator was able to verify, and also as the Complainant has proved by means of a screen that the server yields from a simple Google search introducing the Word “ARCELORMITTAL”. Nevertheless, unlike the aforementioned, there is no evidence that allows us to affirm that the Respondent is recognized by said name.
Furthermore, this Panellist when trying to go to the web page “arcelormittaldistributionsolutionsukltd.com” has not found any associated web page. The Panellist has not found a web page in preparation or one which is aimed at commercial trading, but rather an inactive web page just as the Complainant has proved, thereby submitting as evidence a screen which the server yield upon an attempt to access that page.
Lastly and in relation with the third requisite related to the need for evidence that the registration and the use of the domain has been performed in bad faith. It is not likely that the Respondent did not know the name of the Complainant or their activity since just as we have indicated previously from a simple Google search it is evident that the Complainant´s company is commonly recognized.
This proves that the choice of the domain name by Respondent was not made arbitrarily and that during the registration of the disputed domain name he had in mind the trademark which is the property of the Complainant.
The aforementioned together with the fact that the domain name is not linked to a web page with its own content as well as the passivity on the part of the Respondent in light of the requirement made by this Court for the presentation of the complaint is evidence that said the registration of the domain name was made in bad faith with the intention of disturbing or hindering the mercantile activity of the owner of trademark even though it has not been proven that the Respondent required any amount from the Complainant in order to sell or rent the disputed domain name or that the Respondent offerred to transfer the registration either to the Complainant or to his competitor for obtaining a profit.
Based on the above the Panel states that the Complainant has demonstrated that each and every one of the requirements required for an application of the provisions of Paragraph 4 (a) are met and consequently deems that the Complaint must be admitted and the disputed domain names transferred to the Complainant.
|