1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant has successfully proved to be the owner of the trademarks MITTAL and MITTAL STEEL and of the domain names <mittalsteel.com> and <acerosmittal.com>.
The Panel finds that the trademark “MITTAL” is fully recognizable in the disputed domain name. The addition of the element "ACEROS" does not affect the confusing similarity assessment between the disputed domain name and the trademarks. It is significant that the term "ACEROS" means "steel" for the Spanish speaking portion of the relevant public; thus, for this public, the addition of "ACEROS" will increase rather than limit the risk of confusion as it will be perceived as strictly related to the Complainant's field of business.
The Complainant agrees that the ".com" extension has no impact in the confusing similarity assessment due to its technical function.
As a consequence, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, for the purposes of the First Element of the Policy.
2. The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such a prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of demonstrating its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
In this case, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s submitted evidence and allegations are sufficient to establish a prima facie case of Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
According to the information provided by the Complainant and not contested, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor he is authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark “MITTAL”. The fact that the name of the Respondent's organization appears to be "Aceros Mittal" does not automatically grant to the Respondent a right / legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. To that effect, the Respondent should have proved that "Aceros Mittal" is and was effectively used in the market.
Moreover, the Panel agrees that the actual use of the disputed domain name is not indicative of rights or legitimate interests. As a matter of fact, <aceros-mittal.com> is used in the same industrial field of the Complainant and the Respondent also uses the Complainant’s orange logo. The Panel finds that such use is far from being legitimate for the purposes of the Policy.
For these reasons, the Panel takes the view that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for the purposes of the Policy.
3. The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith.
The Panel finds the following circumstances as material in order to establish the Respondent's bad faith in the registration of the disputed domain name:
(i) the disputed domain name was registered well after the Complainant acquired rights on the trademark MITTAL;
(ii) the Complainant's trademark is widely known as confirmed by previous Panels. The reputation of the trademark MITTAL makes it very improbable that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant's exclusive rights on MITTAL at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name;
(iii) the disputed domain name combines the well-known MITTAL trademark with the Spanish term "aceros". This is an additional index that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its business conducted under the MITTAL trademark. As previously said, the Complainant is active in the steel field and "aceros" means steel in Spanish.
As regards use in bad faith, the Panel considers that the use of the disputed domain name in the same industrial field of the Complainant and the fact that the Respondent uses the figurative trademark of the Complainant are indexes that <aceros-mittal.com> was used to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location, as mentioned by Policy, paragraph 4(b) (iv).
|