1. Confusingly similar disputed domain name
The Complainant has to establish that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Complainant has proven ownership of its registered trademark.
The confusing similarity is simply a comparison of the disputed domain name itself to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name differs from the Complainant’s trademark "ARCELORMITTAL" by the addition of the generic term “PROMOS” which is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant nor by the use of the top-level domain ".com". It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.
It is well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.com”, “.org” or “.net” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is confusingly similar. Therefore, the top-level domain might be considered irrelevant in assessing confusing similarity between a trademark and a disputed domain name (see, for instance, WIPO Case see WIPO Case No. D2006-0451, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A).
Furthermore, the Complainant’s rights were confirmed by many other decisions, for example, see CAC Case No. 212212 ArcelorMittal (SA) v. Verne Inc <arcelormittals.com> and CAC Case No. 102182 ArcelorMittal (SA) v. Repossessed by Go Daddy <arcelormittall.com> and CAC Case No. 102186 ArcelorMittal (SA) v. david lopez <acelormittall.com> and CAC Case No. 102185 ArcelorMittal (SA) v. Domain eRegistration <arcelormittallrecruitment.com> and CAC Case No. 102179 ArcelorMittal (SA) v. Fundacion Comercio Electronico <arcelormittallamericas.com> and also CAC Case No. 102180 ArcelorMittal (SA) v. stave co ltd <arcelorrnittals.com>.
The Panel comes to the conclusion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
2. No rights or legitimate interests by using the disputed domain name
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the Respondent diverted the consumers and concurrently the disputed domain name represents the tarnish of the trade mark of the Complainant. The Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name nor he has any site connection with the disputed domain name while the Whois information was not similar to the disputed domain name.
The Panel concluded that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, the Respondent cannot prove any license nor authorization granted to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent has not been authorized to apply for registration of the disputed domain name and the disputed domain name redirects to a parking page with commercial links which directly relate to the Complainant while the Respondent does not appear to make any legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, nor any use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Furthermore, the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any of the other non-exclusive circumstances evidencing rights or legitimate interests or any other evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
3. Bad faith by using the disputed domain name
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain has been registered and is being in bad faith by attracting internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant. The Panel assessed the given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation and can conclude that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.
It is evidenced that the Respondent utilizes an original logo and the same font which are actually identical to Complainant’s trademark as well as Complainant’s copyrighted images and text in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant. (see for example American Cheerleader Media, LLC. v. ilir shoshi / cheer, FA 1592319 (Forum, January 20, 2015).
The Panel comes to the conclusion that the Respondent is using and has registered the disputed domain name and has registered <arcelormittalpromos.com> in bad faith registration and use in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
|