| Case number | CAC-UDRP-105925 |
|---|---|
| Time of filing | 2023-10-30 08:58:01 |
| Domain names | arcelormittal.host |
Case administrator
| Organization | Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin) |
|---|
Complainant
| Organization | ARCELORMITTAL |
|---|
Complainant representative
| Organization | NAMESHIELD S.A.S. |
|---|
Respondent
| Name | bill chill yht |
|---|
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 registered owner of international word trademark “ArcelorMittal”, reg. no. 947686, filed on 25 May 2007, registered on 3 August 2007, registered for goods and services in classes 6, 7, 9, 12, 19, 21, 39, 40, 41 and 42 (“Complainant’s Trademark”).
The disputed domain name <arcelormittal.host> was registered on 25 October 2023.
As the Respondent did not file any response to the complaint, the Panel took into account the following facts asserted by the Complainant (and supported by the documentary evidence submitted by the Complainant) and unchallenged by the Respondent:
(a) the Complainant is the largest steel and mining company in the world and is the market leader in steel for use in automotive, construction, household appliances and packaging. It holds sizeable captive supplies of raw materials and operates extensive distribution networks;
(b) the Complainant is the owner of the Complainant’s Trademark;
(c) the Complainant owns various domain names including the same distinctive wording ARCELORMITTAL;
(d) the disputed domain name was registered on 25 October 2023; and
(e) the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page.
The Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant.
THE COMPLAINANT:
In addition to the above factual assertions, the Complainant also contends the following:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s Trademark;
(ii) the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant nor authorized by it in any way to use Complainant’s Trademark. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent;
(iii) the disputed domain name resolves to parking page and the Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name. This confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. It proves a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name except in order to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its trademark. Therefore, the Respondent does not have right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name;
(iv) Complainant’s Trademark is widely known. Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademark ARCELORMITTAL in the following cases:
-
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.");
-
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 trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark; and
(v) 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. As a result, the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent.
THE RESPONDENT:
The Respondent did not provide any response to the complaint.
The Panel concluded that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP" or "Policy").
For details, please see "Principal Reasons for the Decision".
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).
For details, please see "Principal Reasons for the Decision".
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).
For details, please see "Principal Reasons for the Decision".
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
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant proves each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the disputed domain name should be transferred or revoked:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; 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.
The Panel will proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in this proceeding.
RIGHTS
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s Trademark.
For sake of completeness, the Panel asserts that the top-level suffix in the domain name (i.e. the ".host") must be disregarded under the identity / confusing similarity test as it is a necessary technical requirement of registration.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Complainant satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS
The Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP (please see, for example, WIPO case no. D2003-0455, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.).
As asserted by the Complainant (and unchallenged by the Respondent), the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Neither is the Respondent in any way related to the Complainant. The Respondent failed to provide any information and evidence that it has relevant rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy).
Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest to the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).
BAD FAITH
The Complainant has not presented evidence establishing any of the typical cases of bad faith in registration and use of the domain name listed in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy. Nevertheless, such list is not exhaustive and bad faith in registration and use of the disputed domain name may also be found in other cases taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances of the case at hand (please see the WIPO case No. D2000-0003, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows <telstra.org> and WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition, Section 3.2).
Here the Panel noted that the Complainant is a global company and the Complainant’s Trademark is registered and enjoys good reputation in many countries worldwide. The Complainant is present and has registered its trademark also in Germany where the Respondent (allegedly) resides. The denomination “Arcelor Mittal” has no common meaning in English language (as the language of the global trade) or German language (as the language of the country where the Respondent allegedly resides), it clearly points out to the Complainant (and not much else) when entered into the internet search engines. Hence the Panel is convinced that such denomination is clearly distinctive to the Complainant. Distinctiveness and reputation of Complainant’s Trademark has already been established by the Panels in number of previous cases where Complainant has been subjected to cybersquatting (please see above). In this respect, the Panel also deems appropriate to refer to paragraph 2 of the Policy under which it is the responsibility of the Respondent as the registrant of disputed domain name to determine whether its registration infringes or violates someone else's rights.
In the light of the above circumstances the Panel failed to find any plausible good faith reasons for registration and use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent. The Respondent has not submitted any response to the Complaint and therefore has not presented any facts or arguments that could counter the above conclusions of the Panel. As a result, the Panel holds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
- arcelormittal.host: Transferred
PANELLISTS
| Name | Michal Matějka |
|---|