Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-107403

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 - ARCELOR MITTAL S.A. - relies on international verbal trademark n° 778212 ARCELOR registered on February 25, 2002 for goods in services in classes 1, 6, 7, 9, 12, 37, 40, 42. This mark claims priority of Benelux trademark number 700209, protected, thus, in Belgium, where the Respondent is indicated to be located. According to the evidence provided, this trademark has duly been renewed and is in force.

According to the undisputed evidence before the Panel, the disputed domain name was registered on March 7, 2025.

The Registrar verification response identified the Respondent as being “Arcelor Limited” located at “Avenue Emile Vandervelde 453 Industriestraat 301 De Haan Namur, 8420 Belgium”. Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a website purporting to provide information on a company "ARCELOR LIMITED" (including vacancy and investment opportunities) with its headquarters allegedly located in Schifflange/Luxembourg and operating particularly in the steel sector.

However, according to the Complainant's allegations supported by evidence, which remained undisputed,

(1) no such Belgium company is identified in the Belgium company registry;

(2) the phone number displayed on the website belongs to a non-governmental organization SORDES; and,

(3) the Complainant had a plant in Schifflange, but it has been closed.

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. Many panels have found that a domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where it incorporates the complainant’s trademark in its entirety. This is the case here where the trademark "ARCELOR" is entirely included in the disputed domain name and merely combined with the additional term "limited".

2.

In the absence of any response, or any other information from the Respondent indicating the contrary, the Panel further holds that the Complainant successfully presented its prima facie case and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

In particular, the Respondent is neither affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant, and it is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business. In addition, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.

Furthermore, the Registrar verification response identified the Respondent as being “Arcelor Limited” located at “Avenue Emile Vandervelde 453 Industriestraat 301 De Haan Namur, 8420 Belgium”. In addition, the disputed domain name resolves to a website purporting to provide information on a company "ARCELOR LIMITED" (including vacancy and investment opportunities) with its headquarters allegedly located in Schifflange/Luxembourg and operating particularly in the steel sector.

However, according to the Complainant's allegations supported by evidence, which remained undisputed,

(1) no such Belgium company is identified in the Belgium company registry;

(2) the phone number displayed on the website belongs to a non-governmental organization SORDES; and,

(3) the Complainant had a plant in Schifflange, but it has been closed.

Therefore, such use can neither be considered as bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

3.

Finally, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

It is the view of this Panel that the Respondent has intentionally registered the disputed domain name, which identically includes the Complainant's trademark ARCELOR. Furthermore, the contact information provided by the Respondent during the domain name registration process is fictitious. Consequently, the Panel is convinced that by the time it registered the disputed domain name, the Respondent had positive knowledge of the Complainant’s rights on its trademark. In doing so, the Respondent attempts to pass itself off as the Complainant or as a company belonging to the Complainant's group of companies.

The Complainant has also submitted evidence indicating that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to direct users to a website that falsely claims to represent a company called "ARCELOR LIMITED." This site presents information about job vacancies and investment opportunities, allegedly linked to this company headquartered in Schifflange, Luxembourg, and operating primarily in the steel industry. These circumstances demonstrate that the disputed domain name is being to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website.