1. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark "ARCELORMITTAL" which was registered prior to the registration of the disputed domain name and should be regarded to having a reputation. The disputed domain name wholly incorporates Complainant's trademark. The fact that the word "procedures" is added does not eliminate the similarity between Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name, as "procedures" is a descriptive component of the disputed domain name. The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the disputed domain name gives the impression to be connected to Complainant's trademark.
2. The Panel finds that the Complainant successfully submitted evidence that the Respondent has made no use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, neither is Respondent making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, nor is Respondent commonly known under the disputed domain name. The Complainant's allegations were not challenged by the Respondent.
3. In the absence of a Response, and given that "ARCELORMITTAL" is not a dictionary and/or commonly used term but a trademark with a reputation, the Panel infers that the Respondent must have had the Complainant's trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name, which was therefore registered in bad faith. Further, the disputed domain name was not resolving to an active website at the time of filing. However, the consensus view amongst UDRP panelists is that the apparent lack of so-called active use of the domain name without any active attempt to sell or to contact the trademark holder does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith. The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the respondent is acting in bad faith. "Factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put" (paragraph 3.4 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition). In this case, the Panel is convinced that the overall circumstances of this case strongly suggest that the Respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain name is in bad faith.
|