Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108119

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 No. 779212 ARCELOR® registered on February 25, 2002 at classes 01, 06, 07, 09, 12, 37, 40 & 42. In addition, the Complainant owns the domain name <arcelor.com> created on August 29, 2001.

FACTS PROVIDED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

The Complainant is a company specialized in steel producing in the world and it is the market leader in steel for use in automotive, construction, household appliances and packaging with 57.9 million tons crude steel made in 2024. It holds sizeable captive supplies of raw materials and operates extensive distribution networks. The Complainant is the owner of the trademark ARCELOR® and the domain name <arcelor.com>.

The disputed domain name <arcelorpedidos.online> (hereinafter, the “Disputed Domain Name”) was registered on October 29, 2025 by Jeferson de Castro Santos based in Brazil and it resolves to an inactive website.

According to Complainant’s non-contested allegations, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the Disputed Domain Name and he is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business.

For the purpose of this case, the Registrar confirmed that the Respondent is the current registrant of the Disputed Domain Name and that the language of the registration agreement is English.

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.

COMPLAINANT:

First element: Similarity

The Complainant confirms that the Disputed Domain Name <arcelorpedidos.online> is confusingly similar to its trademark ARCELOR® and its domain name associated.

The Complainant states that the addition of the term “PEDIDOS” (“ORDERS” in Spanish) is not sufficient to escape the finding that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant and its trademarks.

Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the addition of the addition of the suffix “.ONLINE” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademarks. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademarks and its domain names associated.

Consequently, the Complainant argues that the Disputed Domain Name <arcelorpedidos.online> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark ARCELOR.

Second element: Rights or legitimate interest

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name. Past panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the Whois information was not similar to the disputed domain name. Thus, the Respondent is not known as the Disputed Domain Name.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name and he is not related in any way with the Complainant. In addition, the Complainant argues that they do not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.

The Complainant asserts that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark ARCELOR® or apply for registration of the Disputed Domain Name by the Complainant.

Last but not least, the Complainant indicates that the Disputed Domain Name points to an inactive page. The Complainant contends that the Respondent did not use the Disputed Domain Name, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the Disputed Domain Name.

Thus, in accordance with the foregoing, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.

Third element: Bad faith

The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name < arcelorpedidos.online> is confusingly similar to its distinctive trademark ARCELOR®.

The Complainant indicates that the Complainant’s trademark ARCELOR® is widely known by showing UDRP decisions issued by different UDRP Panelist where the notoriety of the trademark ARCELOR® for metal and steel production has been confirmed. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, the Complainant believes that it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.

Furthermore, the disputed domain name points to an inactive page. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the Disputed Domain Name, and it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law. As prior UDRP panels have held, the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use. Thus, Complainant contends that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name and is using it in bad faith.

 RESPONDENT

Respondent did not reply to the Complaint.

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.

• THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO THE TRADEMARK ARCELOR® OF THE COMPLAINANT.

The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Policy) in its Paragraph 4(a)(i) indicates the obligation of Complainant to demonstrate that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights.

The Complainant has submitted evidence showing the ownership of the international trademark No. 779212 ARCELOR® registered on February 25, 2002 at classes 01, 06, 07, 09, 12, 37, 40 & 42.

In the current case, the Disputed Domain Name <arcelorpedidos.online> is composed of the trademark ARCELOR® together with the term “PEDIDOS” which means ORDERS in Spanish. In assessing confusing similarity, the Panel finds the Disputed Domain Name is indeed confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, as it incorporates the entirety of the J ARCELOR® trademark and the term “PEDIDOS”. In this sense, UDRP panels agree that where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. See paragraph 1.8. of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition 3.0 (“WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0.).

UDRP panels agree that the TLD may usually be ignored for the purpose of determination of identity or confusing similarity between a domain name and the Complainant’s trademark as it is technical requirement of registration. See paragraph 1.11.1 of WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0.

Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy and the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s ARCELOR® trademark.

• RESPONDENT’S LACK OF RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME.

The second element of the Policy requires that the Complainant establishes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The generally adopted approach by UDRP panels, when considering the second element, is that if a complainant makes out a prima facie case, the burden of proof shifts to the respondent to rebut it (see WIPO Jurisprudential Overview, version 3.0., paragraph 2.1).

The Complainant indicates that the Respondent is not affiliated nor authorized in any way to use the trademark ARCELOR®. Furthermore, the Complaint argues that it does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Finally, the Complainant has not granted a license or authorization to the Respondent to make any use of the trademark ARCELOR®.

From the information provided by Complainant, there is no evidence or reason to believe that the Respondent (as individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent’s name “Jeferson de Castro Santos” provided in the Registrar’s verification is all what it links the Disputed Domain Name with the Respondent. Absent of any other evidence such as a personal name, nickname or corporate identifier, the Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name.

Moreover, the website associated with the Disputed Domain Name resolves to an inactive website. Different Panels have confirmed that the lack of content at the Disputed Domain Name can be considered as a finding that Respondent does not have bona fide offering of goods and services (see, for example, Forum Case No. FA 1773444, Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc v. Joannet Macket/JM Consultants).

The fact that Respondent did not reply to the Complaint gives an additional indication that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest since Respondent did not provide with evidence of the types specified in paragraph 4 (c) of the Policy, or of any circumstances, giving rise to rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.Therefore, the Panel concludes that neither the Respondent nor the evidence establishes that the Respondent has any right or legitimate interest to the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant has therefore also satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

• THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME HAS BEEN REGISTERED AND IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY.

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy indicates that Complainant must assert that the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. In this sense, Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four circumstances which if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or acquired the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Disputed Domain Name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) The Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) The Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the Disputed Domain Name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product.

The evidence submitted by Complainant confirms that its trademark ARCELOR® is distinctive and it has a strong reputation in the metal and steel production industry. In this vein, the Complainant referred to different UDRP cases by which the Panels confirmed the well know status of the ARCELOR® trademarks throughout the world (e.g. WIPO Case Nr. DME2018-0005 and CAC Case No. 100756). Absent of Respondent’s reply, the Panel finds that Respondent, prior to the registration of the Disputed Domain Name was aware of Complainant’s trademark, in particular since the Disputed Domain Name was registered on October 29^th, 2025 and the Complainant’s trademark was registered long before the registration of the Disputed Domain Name.

Panels have found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.

See paragraph 3.1.4 of WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0.

From this evidence, the Panel concludes that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark at the time it registered the Disputed Domain Name.

As indicated by Complainant, the website associated with the Disputed Domain Name resolves to an inactive website. Past panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding and for this purpose, the following factors should be taken into account: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put.

See paragraph 3.3. of WIPO Overview.

As explained before, the Complainant’s mark is indeed distinctive and it has a strong reputation in the metal and steel production industry and by no replying to this Complaint, the Respondent did not show any evidence regarding the good faith to use the domain name. Thus, the finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding can be applicable to the current case.

In light of the above-mentioned findings, the Panel finds that the evidence submitted by the Complainant supports the argument that by using the Disputed Domain Name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product.

Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith and thus has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.