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.	104359
Time of Filing	2022-02-15 09:21:56
Disputed domain name	ARCELORMITTAIL.COM

Case Administrator
Name	Denisa Rihova

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

Respondent
Name	antoniomig Miguel

Other Legal Proceedings
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.

Identification of rights
The Complainant owns several trademark registrations across various jurisdictions, inter alia the international trademark No. 947686 "ARCELORMITTAL", registered on August 3, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the "Trademark").

Factual Background
The Complainant is ARCELORMITTAL S.A., a company specialized in steel producing. It is the largest steel producing company in the world and the market leader in steel for use in automotive, construction, household appliances and packaging. The Complainant provides information on its services online at <arcelormittal.com>. The disputed domain name <arcelormittail.com> was registered on February 9, 2022 and resolves to an inactive website.

Factual Background

The Complainant is ARCELORMITTAL S.A., a company specialized in steel producing. It is the largest steel producing company in the world and the market leader in steel for use in automotive, construction, household appliances and packaging.

The Complainant provides information on its services online at <arcelormittal.com>.

The disputed domain name <arcelormittail.com> was registered on February 9, 2022 and resolves to an inactive website.


PARTIES' CONTENTIONS: COMPLAINANT: The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark. Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In this regard, the Complainant states that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, that it is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way, that the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent, and that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Trademark or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant. Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It contends that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its well-known Trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, that the Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name and the setting up of MX servers is evidence of bad faith. RESPONDENT: No administratively compliant Response has been filed.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:

COMPLAINANT:

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark.

Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In this regard, the Complainant states that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, that it is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way, that the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent, and that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Trademark or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.

Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It contends that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its well-known Trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, that the Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name and the setting up of MX servers is evidence of bad faith.

RESPONDENT:

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.

Rights
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).

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).

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).

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
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements is present: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark; 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. 1. The Panel accepts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark as it fully incorporates it. It is well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark may be confusingly similar to such trademark for purposes of the Policy despite of an obvious misspelling of the Complainant's mark (typosquatting), such as the addition of the letter "i" in the present case. 2. The Complainant has substantiated that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Complainant has fulfilled its obligations under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. The Respondent did not deny these assertions in any way and therefore failed to prove any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 3.1 The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant and its rights in the Trademark as the Trademark is highly distinctive and well-established. 3.2 Furthermore, the Panel accepts the Complainant's contentions that the disputed domain name has been used in bad faith under the principles of passive holding. It is the consensus view that the lack of active use of a domain name does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. In such cases, the panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether a respondent is acting in bad faith. Examples of circumstances that can indicate bad faith include a complainant having a well-known trademark, no response to the complaint, respondent’s concealment of identity and the impossibility of conceiving a good faith use of the domain name (cf Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Jupiters Limited v. Aaron Hall, WIPO Case No. D2000-0574; Ladbroke Group Plc v. Sonoma International LDC, WIPO Case No. D2002-0131). Furthermore, the Panel accepts that the existence of active MX records connected to the disputed domain name, lead to the finding of bad faith use, since - in the present case - 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 Respondent failed to file a Response and therefore did not provide evidence of any actual or contemplated good faith use of the disputed domain name. The Panel is convinced that, even though the disputed domain name has not yet been actively used, the Respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain name equals to use in bad faith.

Principal Reasons for the Decision

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the following three elements is present:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark; 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.

1. The Panel accepts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark as it fully incorporates it. It is well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trademark may be confusingly similar to such trademark for purposes of the Policy despite of an obvious misspelling of the Complainant's mark (typosquatting), such as the addition of the letter "i" in the present case.

2. The Complainant has substantiated that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Complainant has fulfilled its obligations under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. The Respondent did not deny these assertions in any way and therefore failed to prove any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

3.1 The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant and its rights in the Trademark as the Trademark is highly distinctive and well-established.

3.2 Furthermore, the Panel accepts the Complainant's contentions that the disputed domain name has been used in bad faith under the principles of passive holding. It is the consensus view that the lack of active use of a domain name does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. In such cases, the panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether a respondent is acting in bad faith. Examples of circumstances that can indicate bad faith include a complainant having a well-known trademark, no response to the complaint, respondent’s concealment of identity and the impossibility of conceiving a good faith use of the domain name (cf Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Jupiters Limited v. Aaron Hall, WIPO Case No. D2000-0574; Ladbroke Group Plc v. Sonoma International LDC, WIPO Case No. D2002-0131).

Furthermore, the Panel accepts that the existence of active MX records connected to the disputed domain name, lead to the finding of bad faith use, since - in the present case - 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 Respondent failed to file a Response and therefore did not provide evidence of any actual or contemplated good faith use of the disputed domain name. The Panel is convinced that, even though the disputed domain name has not yet been actively used, the Respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain name equals to use in bad faith.

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

Panellists
Name	Stefania-Despoina Efstathiou, LL.M. mult.
Date of Panel Decision	2022-03-27

Publication of the Decision
Publish the Decision