The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the the mark which Complainant has rights.
Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (FORUM Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name); see also AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (FORUM Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”).
Complainant contends Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. He has no relationship with Complainant's business and is not authorized or licensed to use the trademark ARCELORMITTAL®.
Furthermore, the website in connexion with the disputed domain name <arcelormittla.com> displays an inactive page since its registration.
It is established that a domain name holder has no legitimate interest in the absence of credible evidence of use or demonstrable preparation of use of the domain name in connection with a bona fide offer products or services. It demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the domain names. Please see for instance:
- WIPO case No. D2000-1164, Boeing Co. v. Bressi: the Panel stated that the “Respondent has advanced no basis on which the Panel could conclude that it has a right or legitimate interest in the domain names”;
Thus, in accordance with the foregoing, Complainant contends that Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name <arcelormittla.com>.
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
Furthermore, the disputed domain name remains inactive use. In light of notoriety of the Complainant's mark, such an inactive use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use.
|