FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:
The Complainant contends that it is a company specialized in the largest steel producing company in the world and is the market leader in steel for use in automotive, construction, household appliances and packaging with operations in more than 60 countries.
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its prior trademark ARCELORMITTAL. A domain name that wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP (WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin). Indeed, the addition of the geographical term “MEXICO” in the trademark is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark ARCELORMITTAL. On the contrary, it worsen the likelihood of confusion, as the Complainant had activities in Mexico. (WIPO Case No. D2018-0339, Charabot SA v. Name Redacted). Furthermore, the addition of the gTLD “.NET” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to Complainant’s trademark. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated (WIPO Case No. D2006-0451, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A.).
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and he 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 licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant. Furthermore, the disputed domain name points to an inactive website since its registration. Therefore, the Complainant contends that 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.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its distinctive and widely known trademark ARCELORMITTAL. The notoriety of the trademark ARCELORMITTAL has been confirmed in several UDRP proceedings (CAC Case No. 101908, ARCELORMITTAL v. China Capital; CAC Case No. 101667, ARCELORMITTAL v. Robert Rudd). Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. Furthermore, the website in connection with the disputed domain name is not used since its registration. The incorporation of a famous trademark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use (WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows; WIPO Case No. D2000-0400, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen).
|