Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-106690

(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 10 July 2024; and

(e) there is no website under the disputed domain but its MX records are configured.

The Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant.

In addition to the above factual assertions, the Complainant also contends the following:

(i) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademark;

(ii) the disputed domain name is also a clear case of "typosquatting“, i.e. the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of Complainant’s Trademark;

(iii) 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;

(iv) registering the disputed domain name with the misspelling (slight spelling variation) of the Complainant’s Trademark was intentional attempt to create confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trademarks and thus the registration was done in bad faith; and

(v) the MX records of the disputed domain name are configured. Therefore, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name may be used for fraudulent purposes such as phishing.

THE RESPONDENT:

The Respondent did not provide any response to the complaint.

(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 confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademark. The Panel agrees with the previous decisions concerning similar cases involving the Complainant that a slight spelling variation of the disputed domain name <arcelor-mittals.com> is not sufficient to avoid confusing similarity to the Complainant’s Trademark (ArcelorMittal) (please see, for example, CAC Case no. 101233, ARCELORMITTAL v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 124632448 <arcelormilttal.com>, WIPO case no. D2016-1853 - Arcelormittal S.A. v. Cees Willemsen - <arclormittal.com> and <arelormittal.com>, CAC case no.101265 - ARCELORMITTAL v. Fetty wap LLc Inc - <arcelormitals.com> , CAC case no. 101267 - ARCELORMITTAL v. davd anamo - <arcelormiltal.com>)

For sake of completeness, the Panel asserts that the top-level suffix in the domain name (i.e. the ".com") 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 UDRP.

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 has 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 Panel believes that this case is an example of typosquatting (i.e. registering of a domain name with a typographical error or slight spelling variation to create confusing similarity to a trademark or other well known designation) which is one of the model situations of bad faith registration / use of a domain name (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). As numerous previous decisions have held, typosquatting as such is evidence of bad faith in registration and use of a domain name (please see, for example, WIPO Case No. D2011-1079 bwin.party services (Austria) GmbH v. Interagentur AG; WIPO Case No. D2002-0568, Go Daddy Software, Inc. v. Daniel Hadani; WIPO Case No. D2002-0423 Dell Computer Corporation v. Clinical Evaluations, or WIPO Case No. D2001-0970, Briefing.com Inc v. Cost Net Domain Manager).

As a result, the Panel found that the disputed domain name has been registered and used by the Respondent in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).