1.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Many panels have found that a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where it incorporates the complainant’s trademark in its entirety. It is true that in the case at hand, the Complainant’s registered trademark <ArcelorMittal> is fully included in the disputed domain name. The addition of the letters "de-" will be commonly understood as a reference to Germany and therefore as a geographic indication which cannot exclude the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's registered mark.
2.
In the absence of any Response, or any other information from the Respondent indicating the contrary, the Panel further holds that the Complainant successfully presented its prima facie case and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
In particular and despite the company name used by the Respondent (which corresponds to the Complainant's German establishment), the latter is not affiliated with, nor authorized by the Complainant in any way, and it is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business. This is particularly evidenced by the email-address used by the Respondent and which is not connected to the Complainant.
In addition, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.
Finally, no content is displayed on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves. Such use can neither be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
3.
Finally, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
It is the view of this Panel that the Respondent has intentionally registered the disputed domain name, which almost identically reproduces the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel is convinced that by the time the disputed domain name was registered, the Respondent had positive knowledge of the Complainant’s rights on its trademark, in fact it used the company name and address of the Complainant's German subsidiary as Registrant name/address; in doing so, the Respondent attempts to pass itself off as the Complainant’s German subsidiary.
In addition, the Panel considers that the fact that the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage does not prevent a finding of bad faith. In this regard, this Panel shares the view expressed at point 3.3. in the WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0: “From the inception of the UDRP, panellists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. While panellists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put”. In the case at hand, the Panel takes into consideration not only (1) the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark, but also (2) the clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no response to the Complaint with conceivable or credible explanations of the Respondent’s conduct, and (3) the implausibility of any good faith uses to which the disputed domain name may be put.
|