NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.
COMPLAINANT'S CONTENTIONS:
a. Identity or confusing similarity
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks.
The trademark ArcelorMittal is included in its entirety with addition of the generic word “promos” and the geographic term “mexico” in the disputed domain name. The addition of the generic term “promos”, which means advertisement, in front of the Complainant’s trademark and the geographic term “mexico” following the trademark is not sufficient to avoid the likelihood of confusion with the trademark of the Complainant.
Moreover, the Complainant has subsidiaries in Mexico. Therefore, the addition of the geographical term "mexico" combined with the trademark in the disputed domain name makes it even more confusingly similar to the trademark ArcelorMittal that covers Mexico.
Furthermore, the Complainant contends the addition of the gTLD “.com” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the international trademark ArcelorMittal. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademarks and its domain names associated.
b. No rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent
The Complainant contends that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not known under the disputed domain name.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and it is not related in any way with the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.
Moreover, the Complainant states that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to pass off as the Complainant. The disputed domain name resolves to a website containing the trademark of the Complainant and with a similar appearance as the official website of the Complainant, and uses fields to fill in login and password information, which could be used in order to collect personal information of the internet users, Complainant’s clients. Therefore, it cannot be considered as bona fide offering of goods and services or fair use under the Policy.
Based on the above mentioned arguments, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. He has no relationship with Complainant's business and is not authorized or licensed to use the trademark.
c. Registration of the domain name and use in bad faith
The Complainant’s trademark is widely known. Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademarks in the following cases:
- the 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 (7 February 2018) and is widely well-known.");
- the 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 disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. Moreover, the Respondent was aware of the existence of the Complainant's trademarks and about the Complainant’s presence in Mexico at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is even using the Complainant's trademark on its website. Furthermore, the Complainant also contends that the Respondent, by using the disputed domain name, attempted to attract Internet users to its website for the commercial gain by creating confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website. The Complainant states that the Respondent registered the domain name to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and the Complainant’s trademark in order to profit from the Internet users, looking for Complainant’s website and finding the Respondent’s website. Besides, the Respondent is trying to collect personal information of the Internet users, clients of the Complainant, namely their emails and passwords, through its website.
|