I. Confusingly similar disputed domain name
The Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL is widely known and is highly distinctive and well-established (also CAC Case No. 101908, ARCELORMITTAL v. China Capital and CAC Case No. 101667, ARCELORMITTAL v. Robert Rudd).
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <acelormital.com> is confusingly similar to the trademark ARCELORMITTAL while the trademark ARCELORMITTAL is included in its entirety and the deletion of the letter “R” in the word “Arcelor” and the letter “T” in the word “Mittal” is a clear case of typosquatting, i.e. the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark. The slight spelling variations does not prevent a disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark (CAC Case No. 102360, ARCELORMITTAL (SA) v. Milton Liqours lLC <arcelornmittall.com>, CAC Case No. 102349, ARCELORMITTAL S.A. v. Arcelormittal <arcelomittal.org> and CAC Case No. 102346, ARCELORMITTAL (SA) v. Sani Cermaic <acelormitall.com>). Typosquatting is the practice of registering a domain name in an attempt to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors and can be evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (FORUM Case No. 1765498, Spotify AB v. The LINE The Line / The Line). The addition of the gTLD “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark and does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.
Thus, the Panel concluded that the Complainant have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (i) of the UDRP.
II. No rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name
The Panel finds that the Respondent is not known in the WHOIS database by the disputed domain name. On the other hand the Respondent has not proved that it has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name <acelormital.com>. The Respondent is obviously not related in any way with the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor having any business with the Respondent. Neither license 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. The Complainant made out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
Thus, the Panel concluded that the Complainant have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the UDRP.
III. Bad faith by using the disputed domain name
The Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL is widely known. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name redirects to commercial links in relation to the Complainant. The Respondent cannot establish rights or legitimate interests through the use of a disputed domain name with a pay-per-click landing page containing links to ads that relate to the Complainant's area of commercial activity, thus manifesting an intent to exploit and profit from the Complainant's mark (WIPO Case No. D2009-0776, Aspen Holdings Inc. v. Rick Natsch, Potrero Media Corporation). That is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Complainant's trademark is widely known and highly distinctive and well-established, therefore it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.
Thus, the Panel concluded that the Complainant have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (iii) of the UDRP.
|