FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:
A) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the protected mark
The disputed domain name <arcelormittali.com> is confusingly similar to its protected trademark ARCELORMITTAL® by misspelling/typosquatting as it includes the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety. The obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL®, i.e. the addition of the letter “I”, is characteristic of a typosquatting practice intended to create confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.
The Complainant quotes section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 which states that “[a] domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element.”) and §1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 which states “the applicable Top Level Domain (“TDL”) in a domain name (e.g., “.com”, “.club”, “.nyc”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusion similarity test”.
The Complainant recalls:
- WIPO Case No. D2020-3457, ArcelorMittal (Société Anonyme) v. Name Redacted <arcelormltal.com>.
B) The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name by its non-use/passive holding
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name because the Whois information is not similar to the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name <arcelormittali.com> and he is not related in any way with the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL®, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant. The typosquatting in form of a typosquatted version of the trademark ARCELORMITTAL® is the practice of registering a domain name in an attempt to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors and can evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. Moreover, the disputed domain name resolves to an index page. The Complainant contends that Respondent did not use the disputed domain name, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name.
The Complainant recalls:
- WIPO Case No. D2003-0455 Croatia Airlines d. d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.;
- Forum Claim No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston / Elite Media Group;
- Forum Claim No. 1597465, The Hackett Group, Inc. v. Brian Herns / The Hackett Group.
C) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith
The Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL® is widely known. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <arcelormittali.com> is confusingly similar to its distinctive trademark ARCELORMITTAL®. 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.
The Complainant recalls:
- WIPO Case No. DCO2018-0005, ArcelorMittal SA v. Tina Campbell;
- Forum Claim No. FA 877979, Microsoft Corporation v. Domain Registration Philippines.
The Complainant alleges that the notoriety of the trademark ARCELORMITTAL® is widely acknowledged. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. Moreover, the Complainant states the misspelling of the trademark ARCELORMITTAL® was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark.
The Complainant recalls:
- CAC Case No. 101908, ARCELORMITTAL v. China Capital;
- CAC Case No. 101667, ARCELORMITTAL v. Robert Rudd;
- WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows;
- WIPO Case No. D2000-0400, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen.
The Complainant contends, based on the facts above, that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name <arcelormittali.com> and is using it in bad faith. The MX servers are configured which suggests that it may be actively used for email purposes and that there is no present use of the disputed domain name but there are several active MX records connected to the disputed domain name. It is concluded that it is inconceivable that the Respondent will be able to make any good faith use of the disputed domain name as part of an e-mail address.
The Complainant recalls:
- CAC Case No. 102827, JCDECAUX SA v. Handi Hariyono;
- WIPO Case No. D2020-3457, ArcelorMittal (Société Anonyme) v. Name Redacted.
|