1. Identical or confusingly similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MITTAL trademark within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, since the disputed domain name incorporates the latter in its entirety and the mere addition of the generic term “acero”, meaning “steel” in the Spanish language, is not capable to dispel the confusing similarity arising from the Complainant’s trademark’s incorporation in the disputed domain name.
2. No rights or legitimate interests
Moreover, the Complainant contends, and the Respondent has not objected to these contentions, that the Respondent has neither made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is the Respondent commonly known under the disputed domain name, nor is the Respondent making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain. The Complainant has provided evidence that the disputed domain name redirects to an active website at “www.aceromittal.com” which obviously copies substantial parts (including official logo etc.) of the Complainant’s own website pretending to be the Complainant’s Mexican subsidiary with apparently no authorization granted to Respondent to do so, which obviously neither qualifies as a bona fide nor as a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore considers that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
3. Bad faith
Finally, the Complainant argues, and the Panel agrees to this line of argumentation, that the Respondent’s making use of the disputed domain name to redirect to a website that somehow copies the Complainant’s official website not only is a clear indication that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s MITTAL trademark, but also shows that the Respondent obviously registered and is using the disputed domain name intending to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s own website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s MITTAL trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. Such circumstances shall be evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraphs 4(b)(iv) and 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
|