As contained under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for the Complaint to succeed in relation to the Disputed Domain Name, the Complainant must show the following:
(i) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and
(iii) The Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In this case, the Respondent failed to produce a Response, therefore, the Panel may treat as uncontested the assertions put forth by the Complainant. Now, the Panel will turn to review each of these elements.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant, through evidence on record, has established its rights in the trademark ARCELORMITTAL, since 2007. Additionally, the Complainant submitted evidence showing the trademark has achieved recognition through its use and is widely-known.
The second step under this element requires the Panel to determine if the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. As part of this analysis, the Panel notes that the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the entirety of the trademark, namely “ARCELORMITTAL”, with the addition of the text “planta”, using a hyphen to separate the trademark and the word. This additional text appears to be in Spanish and it roughly translates to “plant” or “factory”, both of which can be synonymous. If the Panel acknowledges the meaning to be “factory” and/or the synonymous acceptation of “plant”, it would signify that it is meant to reference a commonly used term in relation to one of the main activities of the Complainant, namely steel production. This fact reinforces the conclusion that the additional text is of secondary importance to the main element of the Disputed Domain Name, namely “ARCELORMITTAL” and has been included in order to enhance the likelihood of confusion between the Disputed Domain Name and the trademark, but the Panel will delve into this under the subsequent elements.
Based on this, and as per the evidence on record, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name contains the totality of the trademark, which is clearly identified and the additional text does not dispel the confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark, as elucidated under paragraph 1.8 of WIPO Overview 3.0.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complaint has satisfied the first element set under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent is not commonly known as the Disputed Domain Name, does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business relations with the Respondent. Furthermore, the Respondent is not beneficiary of a license or authorization granted by the Complainant. Based on these allegations, and the guidance contained under paragraph 2.1 of WIPO 3.0 Overview, it is the view of the Panel that this is enough to establish a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.
Additionally, as per the evidence on record, the Respondent, in the website that resolves from the Disputed Domain Name, utilized the Complainant’s trademark and reproduced the look and feel of one of the Complainant’s websites, giving the appearance that the Disputed Domain Name is directly related to the Complainant. This is further supported by the use of the generic term “planta” in the Disputed Domain Name, which is meant to further cement the misrepresentation, which in the view of the Panel amounts to impersonation/passing off in the terms described under paragraph 2.13.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0. This passing off, under no circumstances, can confer rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent and there is no available evidence on record that would otherwise allow the Panel to find any rights or legitimate interests for the Respondent in the Disputed Domain Name.
Hence, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and therefore the Complainant has fulfilled the second requirement set under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
In relation to the third element, and as per the evidence on record, namely the content of the website resolving from the Disputed Domain Name – which replicates the Complainant’s trademark and the look and feel of one of the main websites of the Complainant – it is more than likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and targeted the Complainant’s trademarks when registering the Disputed Domain Name for commercial gain by benefiting from the likelihood of confusion. This fact creates a presumption of bad faith, being that the Complainant’s trademark is widely-known, as per paragraph 3.1.4 of WIPO Overview 3.0. The Panel therefore finds that the registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name has been in bad faith, as it encompasses the breadth of the conducts contained in the indicative list under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The Panel consequently finds that the Complainant has satisfied the third and final element required under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
D. Decision
For the preceding reasons and in conformity with the provisions contained under Paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and Paragraph 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name to the Complainant.
|