The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain name is identical to or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark “ARCELORMITTAL” and its domain names associated.
It asserts that the deletion of the letter R and the addition of the abbreviation “MX”, for Mexico and the gTLD “.com” is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL.
In support of its contention, the Complainant relies on previous similar cases involving the Complainant. See WIPO Case No. D2020-1174, ArcelorMittal (Société Anonyme) v. Avinash Maharaj, Avinash Maharaj <arcerlomittalsa.com>; CAC Case No. 101989, ARCELORMITTAL S.A. v. Jeton Heta, <kryviy-arcelormittal.com>; CAC Case No. 101276, ARCELORMITTAL v. Whois Privacy Corp., <arcelormittal-us.com>; and CAC Case No. 101154, ARCELORMITTAL S.A. v. Gluyag Paul, <arcelormittaluk.com>.
When part of a domain name is identical to a well-known trademark, it increases the likelihood of confusion or association between the domain name holder and the trademark owner. It is, therefore, sufficient to establish identity or confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy. See Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc, WIPO Case No. D2001-0902; Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v Vasiliy Terkin, WIPO Case No D2003-003-0888.
It is also a well-established principle in the domain name space that specific top-level domains such as “.COM”, “.ORG” or “.NET” do not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar. For example, WIPO Case No. D2006-0451, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A; WIPO Overview 3.0 Section 1.11.1.
Applying the above well-established principle to the present case, the Panel finds as follows:
(a) The disputed domain name is a misspelling of the term “ARCELORMITTAL” with the removal of the letter “R” from the letters “LOR” combined with the letters “MX”, which is likely to be understood as an abbreviation of Mexico;
(b) Using an abbreviation of a geographical location is not sufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from the trademark of the Complainant in the present case;
(c) The addition of “.COM” does not affect the determination of whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark;
(d) The Complainant’s trademark is a well-known registered trademark that has been used in connection with its business services and offerings for over a decade. Its trademark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name, and accordingly the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
|