The Complainant is a global player in stainless steel with 2.5 million tones of flat stainless steel capacity in Europe and Brazil. The Company is also a leading producer of high value-added specialty products, including electrical steel and nickel alloys. Complainant’s production capacity is concentrated in six production facilities located in Brazil, Belgium and France and is unique by its capability to produce stainless and specialties from low cost Biomass/Charcoal.
The Complainant is the owner of many trademarks APERAM and also owns an important domain names portfolio, including the same distinctive wording APERAM, the main domain name is <aperam.com>.
The disputed domain name was registered on April 13, 2021, is inactive, but the corresponding MX servers are configured.
I. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the protected mark
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark APERAM. The misspelling in the disputed domain name (the substitution of the letter “M” by two “N”) is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark APERAM. Thus, this is a clear case of typosquatting, the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark. Previous panels have found that the slight spelling variations does not prevent a domain name from being confusing similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
According to CAC Case No. 100740, ARCELORMITTAL v. arcelornnittal <arcelornnittal.com>, replacing the “M” in the complainant's mark <ArcelorMittal> with a double “N” does not sufficiently change the overall impression of confusing similarity.
Moreover, the Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark APERAM. It does not prevent the likelihood if confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.
Finally, the Complainant’s rights over the term “APERAM” have been confirmed by previous panels (CAC Case No. 103303, APERAM S.A. v. Miller Dereck <aperarn.com>).
So the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark APERAM.
II. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name
The Complainant is required to make 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. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the WHOIS database as the disputed domain name. Past panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the Whois information was not similar to the disputed domain name. Thus, the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by Complainant in any way. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and he is not related in any way to its business. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.
Neither licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.
The Complainant also claims that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the trademark APERAM. 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 domain name.
Accordingly, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name.
III. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name <aperann.com> is confusingly similar to its trademark.
The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name, which is a typosquatted version of the Complainant’s trademark, many years after Complainant had established a strong reputation and goodwill in its mark. Besides, a Google search on the expression “APERAM” displays several results, all of them being related to the Complainant and its activity.
Finally, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark. Indeed, the substitution of the letter “M” by two “N” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. The Complainant states that this misspelling was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark. Previous UDRP panels have seen such actions as evidence of bad faith.
Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent likely targeted Complainant and its trademark when registering the disputed domain name.
Furthermore, the disputed domain name is inactive. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law.
Although the disputed domain name now appears to be inactive, it has been set up with MX records which suggests that it may be actively used for email purposes. This is also indicative of bad faith registration and use because any email emanating from the disputed domain name could not be used for any good faith purpose.
On these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
|