In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the disputed domain name the Complainant must prove the following:
(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) The Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has shown it owns rights in the ARCELORMITTAL trademark.
Additionally, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established confusing similarity, as the disputed domain name is nearly identical to the trademark, with the exception of one character. The only difference lies in the disputed domain name utilizing a number “1” to substitute the letter “i” contained in the ARCELORMITTAL trademark. This difference is insignificant for purposes of assessing the first element of the Policy.
Accordingly, the Panel finds the Complainant has satisfied the requirements set forth under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
For the Complainant to succeed under the second element of the Policy, it has to show a prima facie case, which consequently shifts the burden of proof to the Respondent (see Berlitz Investment Corp. v. Stefan Tinculescu, WIPO Case No. D2003-0465).
In this case, the Respondent failed to produce allegations or evidence necessary to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
In this case, the uncontested facts indicate that (a) the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant nor is authorized to use the trademark ARCELORMITTAL, and (b) the disputed domain name resolved to a parking page with pay per click links, at the time of the filing of the Complaint. These two facts in conjunction lead the Panel to conclude that the Respondent did not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, but still aimed to create an impression of having an association with the Complainant (see Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba v. Shan Computers, WIPO Case No. D2000-0325).
Accordingly, the Panel finds the Complainant has satisfied the requirements set forth under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant provided evidence that shows a fraudulent use of the disputed domain name through an e-mail meant to appear as having originated from Aditya Mittal, CFO of ArcelorMittal and CEO of ArcelorMittal Europe, with the intention of deriving in unjust enrichment to the benefit of the Respondent. The Panel believes that this conduct embodies the thrust of circumstances exemplified as evidence of bad faith under Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy (see Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Reid Harward, WIPO Case No. D2000-0799).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements set forth under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
D. Decision
For the aforementioned reasons, in accordance with Paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and Paragraph 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
|