Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-105184

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 registration with number 947686 for the word mark "ARCELORMITTAL", registered on August 3, 2007 for goods and services in classes 6, 7, 9, 12, 19, 21, 39, 40, 41 and 42. The registration designates many countries worldwide

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 69.1 million tons crude steel made in 2021. It holds sizeable captive supplies of raw materials and operates extensive distribution networks.

On February2, 2023 the Respondent registered the disputed domain name <arcelormittal-intl.com>.The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website and has been set up with MX records.

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.

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.

1. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark ARCELORMITTAL which was registered prior to the registration of the disputed domain name and should be regarded to having a reputation. The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant's trademark. The fact that the term "-int" is added does not eliminate the similarity between Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name, as "int" can represent “international”, which is a descriptive component of the disputed domain name. The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the disputed domain name gives the impression to be connected to Complainant's trademark.
2. The Panel finds that the Complainant successfully submitted evidence that the Respondent has made no use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, neither did the Complainant grant the Respondent a license or authorization to make use of the Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL or apply for registration of the disputed domain name, nor is the Respondent commonly known under the disputed domain name. The Complainant's allegations were not challenged by the Respondent.
3. In the absence of a Response, and given that ARCELORMITTAL is not a dictionary and/or commonly used term but rather a trademark with a reputation, the Panel infers that the Respondent must have had the Complainant's trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name, which was therefore registered in bad faith. Further, the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. However, the consensus view amongst UDRP panelists is that the apparent lack of so-called active use of the domain name without any active attempt to sell or to contact the trademark holder does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith. The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the respondent is acting in bad faith. "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" (paragraph 3.4 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition). In this case, the Panel is satisfied that the overall circumstances of this case strongly suggest that the Respondent’s non-use of the disputed domain name is in bad faith. This is further enhanced by the fact that the Complainant also alleged that Respondent set up Mail Exchange records (“MX records”) to enable sending and receiving emails from the disputed domain name. In absence of a Response the Panel considers it likely that the disputed domain name may have been used for unlawful purposes (e.g., BOLLORE SE v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1247853759 / Angela Chaney, WIPO Case No. D2020-2050 and PrideStaff, Inc. v. Perfect Privacy, LLC / Marcheta Bowlin, Midwest Merchant Services, WIPO Case No. D2021-3165).