Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-102508

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

The Complainant is the owner of the international trademark n° 947686 ARCELORMITTAL registered on August 3rd, 2007.

The Complainant also owns the domain name <arcelormittal.com> which is registered since January 27th, 2006.

FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:

The Complainant is a company specialized in steel producing. The Complainant is the largest steel producing company in the world and is 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.

The Complainant is the owner of the international trademark n° 947686 ARCELORMITTAL registered on August 3rd, 2007.

The Complainant also owns the domain name <arcelormittal.com> registered since January 27th, 2006.

The disputed domain name <arcelormittl.com> was registered on May 22th, 2019, and is inactive.

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark ARCELORMITTAL, because the trademark ARCELORMITTAL is included in its entirety. The only difference is the deletion of the letter “A”, which is in the view of Complainant not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark and branded goods ARCELORMITTAL.

The Complainant states that this is a clear case of typosquatting, i.e. the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark. Previous panels have found that the slight spelling variations does not prevent a disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

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 contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name 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.

Besides, the Complainant also claims that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the trademark ARCELORMITTAL.

Furthermore, the disputed domain name is inactive. Therefore, the Complainant contends that Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name since its registration, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. It demonstrates in the view of Complainant a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

Thus, in accordance with the foregoing, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name.

Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable in the view of Complainant to infer that the Respondent has registered the 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.

Furthermore, the disputed domain name is inactive. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law.

Thus, Complainant contends that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name and is using it in bad faith.

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.

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).

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).

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).

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.

A. Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.

The Complainant has rights in the mark by virtue of its registered trademark ARCELORMITTAL.

The Panel accepts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark as it fully incorporates the well-established Trademark despite the letter "A" at the end of the second level domain name. The only difference is the deletion of the letter “A”, which is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark ARCELORMITTAL.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

When a respondent remains completely silent in the face of a prima facie case that it lacks any rights or legitimate interests in respect of a domain name, a complainant is generally deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Here the Complainant has presented an abundance of evidence to show that the Respondent has no plausible right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name and the Panel so finds.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

C. Bad Faith

The Panel believes furthermore that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights. The disputed domain name was registered more than ten years after the registration of the trademarks and the domain name of Complainant and Complainant used it widely since then.

Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademark ARCELORMITTAL (see CAC Case No. 101908, ARCELORMITTAL v. China Capital ("The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark "ArcelorMittal", at least since 2007. The Complainant's trademark was registered prior to the registration of the disputed domain name (February 7, 2018) and is widely well-known.") and see CAC Case No. 101667, ARCELORMITTAL v. Robert Rudd ("The Panel is convinced that the Trademark is highly distinctive and well-established.")

Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks 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, Respondent is not making an active use of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name was registered on May 22th, 2019, and not used since registration.

Finally, the Panel finds, that Respondent’s registration and use of a domain name that differs from Complainant’s very long trademark by only one letter indicates “typosquatting”, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use (see NAF Case No. 157321, Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Bennie Hu).

On these grounds, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

For the reasons stated above, it is the decision of this Panel that the Complainant has satisfied all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.