The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant is the owner of a number of registered trade marks in various territories for MTTAL and a European registered trade mark for MITTAL STEEL.
In order to satisfy the first element of the Policy it is usually sufficient for a complainant to show that the relevant mark is “recognizable within the disputed domain name”; see section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (the "WIPO Overview 3.0"). The Domain Name can only be sensibly understood as the terms "Mittal", "Tools", and "Steels" in combination with the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain. The marks relied upon by the Complainant are, therefore, clearly recognisable in the Domain Name.
The Complainant has, therefore, satisfied the Panel that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to trade marks in which it has rights and has thereby made out the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
Exactly why the Respondent has registered the Domain Name is unclear. The reference to the use of the Domain Name for an "Index site" is supported by a screenshot which suggests that a browser using that domain name will display an index page showing no substantial content at that online location. Further, although the Complainant refers to the fact that MX servers are configured for the website, which appears to be an assertion that the Domain Name has been configured for use for email, there is no claim by the Complainant that his is how the Domain Name has actually been used.
There are also other aspects of the Complaint that are problematic and which suggest that it has been prepared from a template with not a great deal of thought being given to the actual facts of this case. For example, the Complaint refers to the Complainant's domain name portfolio. However, mere ownership of a domain name does not demonstrate how any name used in the domain name is associated is understood by the relevant public.
The Complainant does at one point in the Complaint cite another UDRP case (in particular WIPO Case D2010-2049) which it was apparently concluded that the "MITTAL and MITTAL STEEL marks have "been widely used and are well-known", but no attempt is made in the Complaint to explain how what form that use has taken and why that is the case.
Further, the Respondent appears to be located in India. An examination of the register in respect of the international mark relied upon suggests that although the mark originally designated India, registration in that country was refused. It is certainly not a requirement of the Policy that a complainant has a mark in the territory in which a respondent is located. But that refusal is curious.
Nevertheless, there is no suggestion that the term "Mittal" is in any way descriptive or generic. On the contrary, a review of the decision in WIPO Case D2010-2049 suggests that the origin of this term is as the name of substantial business that became part of the Complainant as a result of a merger in 2006.
Therefore, in the absence of any argument or evidence to the contrary the Panel is persuaded that the combination of this term with the words Tool and Steel is a direct and deliberate reference to the Complainant. And if this is so, it is difficult to see how a domain name in this form might be used in a manner that was legitimate.
The Panel is, therefore, satisfied on the material before it that it is more likely than not that the Domain Name was registered and has been held in order to take some unfair advantage of the Complainant's trade mark rights. That is sufficient to support a finding of lack of rights or legitimate interest and of bad faith registration and use (see in this respect section 2.15 and 3.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).
It follows that the Complainant has also made out the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy.
|