Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-107995

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 the international trademark reg. no. 947686 for ARCELORMITTAL registered on August 3, 2007. 

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 ("arcelor-mittalmx.com") was registered on September 12 2025 and resolves to a website under construction. In addition, MX servers are configured.

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 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 <arcelor-mittalmx.com> since the addition of the element "MX" does not exclude the similarity between the trademark and the disputed domain name. 

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 the 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, Rogelio Sepulveda is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor is he 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 website under construction. 

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.

Currently, the disputed domain name links to a "page under construction". However, this does not exclude use in bad faith since the reputation of the ARCELORMITTAL trademark makes it very improbable that it could be used in a way that would not infringe the Complainant's rights on the trademark ARCELORMITTAL.

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.