FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:
Previous panels have found that the slight spelling variations does not prevent a disputed domain name from being confusing similar to the complainant’s trademark. Please see prior UDRP cases:
- WIPO Case No. D2004-0296, Costco Wholesale Corporation v. Yong Li (<coscto.com>);
- WIPO Case No. D2015-0451, Clarins v. “-“, Unknown Registrant” / Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC (<calrins.com>);
- WIPO Case No. D2011-1658, Alstom v. Telecom Tech Corp./Private Registration (<asltom.com>).
Furthermore, the Complainant also claims that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the ARCELORMITTAL®. Typosquatting is the practice of registering a domain name in an attempt to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors and can be evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. Please see:
- FORUM Case No. 1765498, Spotify AB v. The LINE The Line / The Line (“Complainant contends the <spotfy.com> domain name differs from the SPOTIFY mark only by the omission of the letter “i" in the mark, and is thus a classic case of typosquatting. […] The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration of the domain name is typosquatting and indicates it lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name per Policy 4(a)(ii).”).
- FORUM Case No. 1597465, The Hackett Group, Inc. v. Brian Herns / The Hackett Group (“The Panel agrees that typosquatting is occurring, and finds this is additional evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests under Policy 4(a)(ii).”).
Moreover, the disputed domain name is inactive since its registration. Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name since its registration, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. It demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
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 he could conclude that it has a right or legitimate interest in the domain names”;
- FORUM Case No. FA109697, LFP, Inc. v. B & J Props.: the Panel stated that “the respondent cannot simply do nothing and effectively “sit on his rights” for an extended period of time when the respondent might be capable of doing otherwise”.
Previous UDRP Panels have seen such actions as evidence of bad faith. Please see for instance:
- WIPO Case No. D2018-0538, Kansas City Steak Company, LLC v. Compsys Domain, Compsys Domain Solutions Private Limited (“This is a clear case of typosquatting. The Respondent has registered the Trade Mark containing a misspelling or homophone of the work “steaks”, most likely to divert traffic from the Complainant’s website to the Respondent’s website. The Panel finds that this constitutes bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.”)
Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademark ARCELORMITTAL® in the following cases:
- CAC Case No. 101908, ARCELORMITTAL v. China Capital ("The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark "ArcelorMittal", at least since 2007. The Complainant's trademark was registered prior to the registration of the disputed domain name (February 7, 2018) and is widely well-known.");
- CAC Case No. 101667, ARCELORMITTAL v. Robert Rudd ("The Panel is convinced that the Trademark is highly distinctive and well-established.").
Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and its reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered and used the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.
Please see for instance WIPO Case No. D2004-0673, Ferrari S.p.A v. American Entertainment Group Inc.
As prior WIPO UDRP panels have held, the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use.
Please see for instance:
- WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows
- WIPO Case No. D2000-0400, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen
|