1. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name ARCELORMITTALGROUP-LTD.COM is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s earlier trade mark "ARCELORMITTAL". Sufficient evidence has been submitted by the Complainant proving that it owns trademark rights to ARCELORMITTAL in several countries. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks since it incorporates the Complainant’s mark “ARCELORMITTAL”, merely (i) adding common terms “GROUP” and "-LTD" as well as the generic top level domain identifier “.com” at the end. The addition of such terms does not dispel the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark.
2. The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii)of the Policy). The Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use its trademark. The Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name, nor has the Respondent acquired any trademark rights in respect of the domain name. The Respondent has not submitted evidence of any use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. There appears to be no other basis on which the Respondent could claim any rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name.
In the absence of any Response from the Respondent, or any other information indicating the contrary, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
3. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark, the Respondent was most likely aware of the existence of the "ARCELORMITTAL" mark when registering the disputed domain name. Only someone who was familiar with the Complainant’s marks and its activity would have registered the domain name with the addition of common terms.
According to WIPO Case No. 2000-0003 ("Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows"), an indication of bad faith registration and use may be inferred in cases of inactive domain names (passive holding) if particular circumstances are present. The Panel finds that, in this particular case, the following circumstances are present:
(i) the Complainant’s trademark is widely known,
(ii) the Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the disputed domain name, and
(iii) taking into account all of the above, it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate.
Based on those circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(iii) .
|