Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-107857

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 International trademark ARCELORMITTAL n°947686 registered on August 3, 2007, in Nice Classes 06, 07, 09, 12, 19, 21, 39, 40, 41 and 42.

FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:

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 57.9 million tons of crude steel made in 2024. It operates the website at “www.arcelormittal.com”. It holds sizeable captive supplies of raw materials and operates extensive distribution networks.

 The disputed domain name <atendearcelormital.online> was registered on August 15, 2025. It resolves to a website reproducing Complainant’s logo.

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.

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

(1) the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(3) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 In view of the Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at paragraph 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum, June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).

As to the first element, the Complainant has shown that it has rights in the ARCELORMITTAL mark and that the mark is very well-known. The Panel finds the disputed domain name <atendearcelormital.online> to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL because, apart from the omission of the letter “t”, it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds word “atende” (meaning “Response” in Portuguese) which does not distinguish the domain name from the mark, together with the inconsequential top-level domain “.online”, which may be ignored under this element. The Complainant has established this element.

 As to the second element, paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by the Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e.

(i) before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the use by the Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) the Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if the Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and is not related in any way to the Complainant. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the WHOIS database as the disputed domain name, but as “Andressa Guzzo Guimaraes”. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Neither licence nor authorization has been granted by the Complainant to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL nor to apply for registration of the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the disputed domain resolves to a website reproducing the Complainant’s logo.

The Panel notes that the disputed domain name <atendearcelormital.online> was registered on August 15, 2025, long after the Complainant had shown that its ARCELORMITTAL mark had become very well-known, and that it resolves to a website reproducing Complainant’s logo.

These circumstances, together with the Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name on the part of the Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). The Respondent has made no attempt to do so.

The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has established this element.

As to the third element, the circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant’s very well-known ARCELORMITTAL mark when the Respondent registered the typosquatted disputed domain name. Typosquatting itself demonstrates registration and use in bad faith. Further, the disputed domain name resolves to a website reproducing the Complainant’s logo. This shows that the Respondent is attempting in bad faith to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website. The Complainant has established this element.