The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
The Complainant contends that it’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL® is widely known and the notoriety of the trademark has been confirmed by the past panels, see CAC Case No. , ARCELORMITTAL v. China Capital,101908 (CAC 2018-04-24) ("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 (February 7, 2018) and is widely well-known.") and ARCELORMITTAL v. Robert Rudd, 101667 (CAC 2017-10-17) ("The Panel is convinced that the Trademark is highly distinctive and well-established."). Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark, see ArcelorMittal SA v. Tina Campbell, DCO2018-0005, (WIPO 2018-03-28) (“The Panel finds that the trademark ARCELORMITTAL is so well-known internationally for metals and steel production that it is inconceivable that the Respondent might have registered a domain name similar to or incorporating the mark without knowing of it.”). Moreover, the Complainant states the misspelling of the trademark ARCELORMITTAL® was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel accepts that ARCELORMITTAL is a well-known mark and in the absence of Respondent's response, it is reasonably to believe that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the mark when he registered the disputed domain name.
Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page and MX servers are configured. 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 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. The Panel accepts that passively holding a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous trademark without proper explanation constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv), see ARCELORMITTAL (SA) v. Milen Radumilo, 102379 (CAC 2019-04-18).
For the foregoing reasons, the Panel finds the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
|