According to paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP Policy the Complainant must prove for the requested transfer of the disputed domain name that:
(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 to the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
There is no reasonable doubt that the Complaint complies with all these requirements:
(i)
The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark "ArcelorMittal", at least since 2007. The Complainant's trademark was registered prior to the registration of the disputed domain name (Jan 7, 2020) and is widely well-known.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark "ArcelorMittal", as the inversion of the letters “O” and “R” and the deletion of the letter “T” are not sufficient to avoid the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. A slight spelling variations of the trademark "ArcelorMittal" do not prevent a disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
ii)
Furthermore the Complainant provided prima facie evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. As asserted by the Complainant (and unchallenged by the Respondent), the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Neither is the Respondent in any way related to the Complainant. The Respondent failed to provide any information and evidence that it has relevant rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy).
In lack of any response from the Respondent, or any other information indicating the contrary, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.
(iii)
For a Complainant to succeed, a panel must be satisfied that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith ([(Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii))].
The Complainant's trademark is well-known. The Panel finds it hard to believe that the Respondent would have chosen and registered the disputed domain name in good faith, without having been aware of the Complainant.
The Complainant points out the following circumstances as material to determine the Respondent’s bad faith in the use of the disputed domain name:
- the Complainant never authorised the Respondent to reproduce its trademark in the disputed domain name and the available evidence does not show whatsoever actual or contemplated good faith use of the disputed domain name;
- taking into account the nature of the disputed domain name, namely the typosquatting excludes any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain names by the Respondent that would not be in bad faith.
For the reasons mentioned above the Panel finds, that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
|