Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-107003

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 proved to be the owner of the international trademark n° 947686 ARCELORMITTAL® registered on August 3, 2007, designating multiple countries. The Complainant also owns the domain name <arcelormittal.com> registered on January 27, 2006.

According to the Complainant submissions, Arcelormittal 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, operating worldwide.

The disputed domain name ("arcelormittalglobal.com") was registered on October 23, 2024 and redirects to a parking page. MX servers are also configured.

COMPLAINANT:

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 disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

The Complainant has successfully proved to be the owner of the trademark ARCELORMITTAL and of the domain name <arcelormittal.com>.

The Panel finds that the trademark ARCELORMITTAL is clearly recognizable in <arcelormittalglobal.com> since the addition of the generic word "GLOBAL" does not exclude the similarity between the trademark and the disputed domain name. On the contrary, the addition of the term global increases the risk of confusion as this term can be associated with the Complainant's global activities.

Furthermore, the addition of domain name extension is generally disregarded in view of its technical function.

As a consequence, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, for the purposes of the First Element of the Policy.

2. The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such a prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of demonstrating its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

In this case, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s submitted evidence and allegations are sufficient to establish a prima facie case of Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

According to the information provided by the Complainant and not contested by the Respondent, Sandy Rowe is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor he is authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark “ARCELORMITTAL”. 

Additionally, the disputed domain name is not used in good faith for the purposes of the Policy since it points to a parking page with commercial links (“PPC”). The sign ARCELORMITTAL has no dictionary meaning that justifies the nature of the links promoted on the website. It is clear, in the view of the Panel, that such links are a way to exploit the reputation of the Complainant's trademarks for economic reasons.

For these reasons, the Panel takes the view that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for the purposes of the Policy.

3. The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith.

The Panel finds the following circumstances as material in order to establish the Respondent's bad faith in the registration of the disputed domain name:

(i) the disputed domain name was registered well after the Complainant acquired rights on the trademark ARCELORMITTAL;

(ii) the Complainant's trademark is widely known as confirmed by previous Panels (CAC Case No. 101908; CAC Case No. 101667). The reputation of the trademark ARCELORMITTAL makes it very improbable that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant's exclusive rights on ARCELORMITTAL at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name;

(iii) the combination between ARCELORMITTAL and GLOBAL suggests that the Respondent was aware of the global business conducted by the Complainant with the trademark ARCELORMITTAL. 

Currently, the disputed domain name points to a PPC page. As said above, the Panel takes the view that such links generate pay-per-click revenues by exploiting the ARCELORMITTAL trademark without the Complainant's authorization. ARCELORMITTAL is a made-up word; thus there is not a descriptive meaning of this word that may justify the PPC links. Such use is, according to the Panel, a use in bad faith.

Moreover, the Complainant proved that MX records are active on the disputed domain name.

All above considered the Panel finds the evidence submitted as sufficient to prove use and registration in bad faith of the disputed domain name for the purposes of the Policy.