Language

This site serves for these domain disputes:

generic Top Level Domains and .co.nl, .co.no and .sx domains

Back to entry page - choose type of domain name dispute

On-line ADR Center of the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC)

Panel Decision

§ 15 of the UDRP Rules (Rules), § 9 of the CAC’s Supplemental Rules (Supplemental Rules)

Case No.	104302
Time of Filing	2022-01-31 08:09:05
Disputed domain name	EARCELORMITAL.COM

Case Administrator
Name	Denisa Rihova

Complainant
Organization	ARCELORMITTAL (SA)
Authorized Representative
Organization	NAMESHIELD S.A.S.

Respondent
Name	billing hipg

Other Legal Proceedings
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that relate to the disputed domain name.

Identification of rights
The Complainant is the registered owner of international word trademark “ArcelorMittal”, reg. no. 947686, filed on May 25, 2007, registered on August 3, 2007, registered for goods and services in classes 6, 7, 9, 12, 19, 21, 39, 40, 41 and 42 (“Complainant’s Trademark”). The disputed domain name <earcelormital.com> was registered on January 20, 2022.

Factual Background
As the Respondent did not file any response to the complaint, the Panel took into account the following facts asserted by the Complainant (and supported by the documentary evidence submitted by the Complainant) and unchallenged by the Respondent: (a) the Complainant is the largest steel producing company in the world and is the market leader in steel for use in automotive, construction, household appliances and packaging with 71.5 million tonnes crude steel made in 2020. It holds sizeable captive supplies of raw materials and operates extensive distribution network; (b) the Complainant is the owner of the Complainant’s Trademark; (c) the Complainant owns various domain names including the same distinctive wording “ARCELORMITTAL”; (d) the disputed domain name was registered on January 20, 2022; and (e) under the disputed domain name there is an inactive website. The Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant.

Factual Background

As the Respondent did not file any response to the complaint, the Panel took into account the following facts asserted by the Complainant (and supported by the documentary evidence submitted by the Complainant) and unchallenged by the Respondent:

(a) the Complainant is the largest steel producing company in the world and is the market leader in steel for use in automotive, construction, household appliances and packaging with 71.5 million tonnes crude steel made in 2020. It holds sizeable captive supplies of raw materials and operates extensive distribution network;

(b) the Complainant is the owner of the Complainant’s Trademark;

(c) the Complainant owns various domain names including the same distinctive wording “ARCELORMITTAL”;

(d) the disputed domain name was registered on January 20, 2022; and

(e) under the disputed domain name there is an inactive website.

The Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant.


PARTIES' CONTENTIONS: COMPLAINANT: In addition to the above factual assertions, the Complainant also contends the following: (i) disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark; (ii) disputed domain name is also a clear case of "typosquatting“, i.e. the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s Trademark; (iii) the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant nor authorized by it in any way to use Complainant’s Trademark. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent; (iv) the website operated under the disputed domain name is inactive. The Complainant contends that there is no legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name; (v) registering the disputed domain name with the misspelling of the well-known Complainant’s Trademark was intentional attempt to create confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trademarks and thus the registration was done in bad faith. RESPONDENT: The Respondent did not provide any response to the complaint.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:

COMPLAINANT:

In addition to the above factual assertions, the Complainant also contends the following:

(i) disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark;

(ii) disputed domain name is also a clear case of "typosquatting“, i.e. the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s Trademark;

(iii) the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant nor authorized by it in any way to use Complainant’s Trademark. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent;

(iv) the website operated under the disputed domain name is inactive. The Complainant contends that there is no legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name;

(v) registering the disputed domain name with the misspelling of the well-known Complainant’s Trademark was intentional attempt to create confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trademarks and thus the registration was done in bad faith.

RESPONDENT:

The Respondent did not provide any response to the complaint.

Rights
The Panel concluded that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP" or "Policy"). For details, please see "Principal Reasons for the Decision".

No rights or legitimate interests
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. For details, please see "Principal Reasons for the Decision".

Bad faith
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. For details, please see "Principal Reasons for the Decision".

Procedural Factors
The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.

Principal Reasons for the Decision
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant proves each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the disputed domain name should be transferred or revoked: (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 of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel will proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in this proceeding. RIGHTS The disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s Trademark. The Panel concludes with the previous decisions concerning similar cases involving the Complainant that a slight spelling variations of the disputed domain name (EARCELORMITAL) are not sufficient to avoid confusing similarity to the Complainant’s Trademark (ArcelorMittal) (please see, for example, CAC Case no. 101233, ARCELORMITTAL v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 124632448 <arcelormilttal.com>, WIPO case no. D2016-1853 - Arcelormittal S.A. v. Cees Willemsen - <arclormittal.com> and <arelormittal.com>, CAC case no.101265 - ARCELORMITTAL v. Fetty wap LLc Inc - <arcelormitals.com> , CAC case no. 101267 - ARCELORMITTAL v. davd anamo - <arcelormiltal.com> or CAC case no. 101560 - ARCELORMITTAL v. Kevin Solis <arcelormtal.com>). For sake of completeness, the Panel asserts that the top-level suffix in the domain name (i.e. the ".com") must be disregarded under the identity / confusing similarity test as it is a necessary technical requirement of registration. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Complainant satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP. NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS 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 UDRP (please see, for example, WIPO case no. D2003-0455, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.). As asserted by the Complainant (and unchallenged by the Respondent), the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. 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). Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent did not establish any right or legitimate interest to the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy). BAD FAITH The Panel believes that this case is a prima facie example of typosquatting which is one of the model situations of bad faith registration / use of a domain name (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). As numerous previous decisions have held, typosquatting as such is evidence of bad faith (please see, for example, WIPO Case No. D2011-1079 bwin.party services (Austria) GmbH v. Interagentur AG; WIPO Case No. D2002-0568, Go Daddy Software, Inc. v. Daniel Hadani; WIPO Case No. D2002-0423 Dell Computer Corporation v. Clinical Evaluations, or WIPO Case No. D2001-0970, Briefing.com Inc v. Cost Net Domain Manager). Specifically with respect to the Complainant a reference can be made for example to the CAC case no. 101560 ARCELORMITTAL v. Kevin Solis <arcelormtal.com> or CAC case no. 102334 ARCELORMITTAL v. Cee Cee Ceen <arcelormttial.com>. This applies in particular where the trademark in question is well-known as it is the case of Complainant's Trademark (as the panels in previous case involving the Complainant have held, please see CAC Case No. 101908, ARCELORMITTAL v. China Capital or CAC Case No. 101667, ARCELORMITTAL v. Robert Rudd). As a result, the Panel found that the disputed domain name has been registered and used by the Respondent in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

Principal Reasons for the Decision

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant proves each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the disputed domain name should be transferred or revoked:

(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 of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Panel will proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in this proceeding.

RIGHTS

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s Trademark. The Panel concludes with the previous decisions concerning similar cases involving the Complainant that a slight spelling variations of the disputed domain name (EARCELORMITAL) are not sufficient to avoid confusing similarity to the Complainant’s Trademark (ArcelorMittal) (please see, for example, CAC Case no. 101233, ARCELORMITTAL v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 124632448 <arcelormilttal.com>, WIPO case no. D2016-1853 - Arcelormittal S.A. v. Cees Willemsen - <arclormittal.com> and <arelormittal.com>, CAC case no.101265 - ARCELORMITTAL v. Fetty wap LLc Inc - <arcelormitals.com> , CAC case no. 101267 - ARCELORMITTAL v. davd anamo - <arcelormiltal.com> or CAC case no. 101560 - ARCELORMITTAL v. Kevin Solis <arcelormtal.com>).

For sake of completeness, the Panel asserts that the top-level suffix in the domain name (i.e. the ".com") must be disregarded under the identity / confusing similarity test as it is a necessary technical requirement of registration.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Complainant satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP.

NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS

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 UDRP (please see, for example, WIPO case no. D2003-0455, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.).

As asserted by the Complainant (and unchallenged by the Respondent), the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. 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).

Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent did not establish any right or legitimate interest to the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

BAD FAITH

The Panel believes that this case is a prima facie example of typosquatting which is one of the model situations of bad faith registration / use of a domain name (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). As numerous previous decisions have held, typosquatting as such is evidence of bad faith (please see, for example, WIPO Case No. D2011-1079 bwin.party services (Austria) GmbH v. Interagentur AG; WIPO Case No. D2002-0568, Go Daddy Software, Inc. v. Daniel Hadani; WIPO Case No. D2002-0423 Dell Computer Corporation v. Clinical Evaluations, or WIPO Case No. D2001-0970, Briefing.com Inc v. Cost Net Domain Manager). Specifically with respect to the Complainant a reference can be made for example to the CAC case no. 101560 ARCELORMITTAL v. Kevin Solis <arcelormtal.com> or CAC case no. 102334 ARCELORMITTAL v. Cee Cee Ceen <arcelormttial.com>.

This applies in particular where the trademark in question is well-known as it is the case of Complainant's Trademark (as the panels in previous case involving the Complainant have held, please see CAC Case No. 101908, ARCELORMITTAL v. China Capital or CAC Case No. 101667, ARCELORMITTAL v. Robert Rudd).

As a result, the Panel found that the disputed domain name has been registered and used by the Respondent in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

Decision
For all the reasons stated above, the Complaint is	Accepted
and the disputed domain name(s) is (are) to be
EARCELORMITAL.COM	Transferred to Complainant

Panellists
Name	Michal Matějka
Date of Panel Decision	2022-03-05

Publication of the Decision
Publish the Decision

Print this form

ADR.eu

Dispute 104302

Panel Decision