Case number | CAC-UDRP-102360 |
---|---|
Time of filing | 2019-02-15 12:10:59 |
Domain names | arcelornmittall.com |
Case administrator
Name | Šárka Glasslová (Case admin) |
---|
Complainant
Organization | ARCELORMITTAL (SA) |
---|
Complainant representative
Organization | Nameshield (Enora Millocheau) |
---|
Respondent
Organization | Milton Liqours lLC |
---|
Other Legal Proceedings
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings pending or decidedand relating to the disputed domain name.
Identification Of Rights
The Complainant is the registered owner of the international trademark no. 947686 ARCELORMITTAL registered on August 3, 2007 for goods and services in classes 6, 7, 9, 12, 19, 21, 39, 40, 41 and 42.
Factual Background
1. The Complainant is the largest steel producing company in the world and the market leader in steel for use in automotive, construction, household appliances and packaging with operations in more than 60 countries. It holds sizeable captive supplies of raw materials and operates extensive distribution networks.
2. It results from the registrar verification that the date of registration of the disputed domain name by the current registrant was February 11, 2019.
According to the undisputed evidence provided by the Complainant, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking website displaying sponsored links.
2. It results from the registrar verification that the date of registration of the disputed domain name by the current registrant was February 11, 2019.
According to the undisputed evidence provided by the Complainant, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking website displaying sponsored links.
Parties Contentions
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
1.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
Many Panels have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where it incorporates the complainant’s trademark in its entirety. In the case at hand, the Complainant’s registered trademark “ARCELORMITTAL” is fully included in the disputed domain name. It is true that the disputed domain name <ARCELORNMITTALL.COM> contains an additional "n" and an "l". However, these additions result to be irrelevant minor variations and obvious misspellings of the trademark and is - at least phonetically - not enough to exclude confusing similarity. In fact, a domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element (see point 1.9 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition - “WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”).
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, the Respondent 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. In addition, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.
Furthermore, it results from the evidence provided by the Complainant that the disputed domain name is connected to a website displaying sponsored links. Such use can neither be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark at issue in the sense of paragraph 4(c)(i) and (iii) of the Policy. In fact, this Panel shares the view of previous panels holding that use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s mark or otherwise mislead Internet users (see section 2.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).
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 uses the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location (see paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).
In the Panel’s view, the Respondent has intentionally registered the disputed domain name which reproduces the Complainant’s trademark almost identically. By the time the disputed domain name was registered, it is unlikely that the Respondent did not have knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant also proved that the Respondent used the disputed domain name to lead to a parking page, with sponsored links. These facts, confirm that the disputed domain name is used to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website.
Finally, the further circumstances surrounding the disputed domain name’s registration and use confirm the findings that the Respondent has registered and is using it in bad faith: (1) The Respondent originally used a privacy service hiding its identity; (2) The clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no response to Complaint with conceivable or credible explanations of the Respondent’s conduct; (3) The the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s mark; (4) The implausibility of any good faith use to which the disputed domain name may be put.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
Many Panels have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where it incorporates the complainant’s trademark in its entirety. In the case at hand, the Complainant’s registered trademark “ARCELORMITTAL” is fully included in the disputed domain name. It is true that the disputed domain name <ARCELORNMITTALL.COM> contains an additional "n" and an "l". However, these additions result to be irrelevant minor variations and obvious misspellings of the trademark and is - at least phonetically - not enough to exclude confusing similarity. In fact, a domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element (see point 1.9 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition - “WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0”).
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, the Respondent 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. In addition, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.
Furthermore, it results from the evidence provided by the Complainant that the disputed domain name is connected to a website displaying sponsored links. Such use can neither be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark at issue in the sense of paragraph 4(c)(i) and (iii) of the Policy. In fact, this Panel shares the view of previous panels holding that use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s mark or otherwise mislead Internet users (see section 2.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).
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 uses the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location (see paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).
In the Panel’s view, the Respondent has intentionally registered the disputed domain name which reproduces the Complainant’s trademark almost identically. By the time the disputed domain name was registered, it is unlikely that the Respondent did not have knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant also proved that the Respondent used the disputed domain name to lead to a parking page, with sponsored links. These facts, confirm that the disputed domain name is used to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website.
Finally, the further circumstances surrounding the disputed domain name’s registration and use confirm the findings that the Respondent has registered and is using it in bad faith: (1) The Respondent originally used a privacy service hiding its identity; (2) The clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no response to Complaint with conceivable or credible explanations of the Respondent’s conduct; (3) The the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s mark; (4) The implausibility of any good faith use to which the disputed domain name may be put.
For all the reasons stated above, the Complaint is
Accepted
and the disputed domain name(s) is (are) to be
- ARCELORNMITTALL.COM: Transferred
PANELLISTS
Name | Dr. Tobias Malte Müller |
---|
Date of Panel Decision
2019-04-02
Publish the Decision