Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108276

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 n° 947686 ARCELORMITTAL registered on August 3, 2007.

The Complainant also owns domain names containing its mark including <arcelormittal.com> registered since January 27, 2006.

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 crude steel made in 2024. It holds sizeable captive supplies of raw materials and operates extensive distribution networks .

The disputed domain name <arcelormittal-cxqtuvme.rest> was registered on December 16, 2025 and resolves to a log in screen.

Complainant

A. The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights

 The disputed domain name <arcelormittal-cxqtuvme.rest> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark ARCELORMITTAL containing it in its entirety.

The addition of the term “CXQTUVME” 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. It is well-established that “a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP”.

 The addition of the suffix “.REST” 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, its trademark and its associated domain name.

Consequently, the disputed domain name <arcelormittal-cxqtuvme.rest> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL.

B. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name

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

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 Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name <arcelormittal-cxqtuvme.rest> and he is not related in any way with the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.

No license or authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.

The disputed domain name resolves to a log in screen. This page may be used for the purpose of collecting personal information from the Complainant's customers.  This use cannot be considered a bona fide offer of services or a legitimate use of domain names, since the website misleads consumers into believing that they are accessing a website related to the Complainant. 

 Thus the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name <arcelormittal-cxqtuvme.rest>.

C. The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith

The Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL is widely known. Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademark ARCELORMITTAL in the following cases:

• CAC Case No. 101908, ARCELORMITTAL v. China Capital ("The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark "ArcelorMittal", at least since 2007. The Complainant's trademark was registered prior to the registration of the disputed domain name (February 7, 2018) and is widely well-known.")
• CAC Case No. 101667, ARCELORMITTAL v. Robert Rudd ("The Panel is convinced that the Trademark is highly distinctive and well-established.")

 Most results from a Google search on the terms “ARCELORMITTAL CXQTUVME” refer to the Complainant.

Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.

The domain name resolves to a log in screen. Therefore, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website. In addition, the Respondent may collect personal information through this website, including passwords.

As previous decisions have held, bad faith is characterized by the Respondent making such use of the domain name.

Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

Respondent 
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.

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's earlier trade mark consisting of that mark and a hyphen and a string of non-sensical letters (which the Panel wondered may be a punycode) neither of which prevents the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark.

The Respondent is not authorised by the Complainant and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name which has been used for a login screen and so appears to be collecting customer data which is not a bona fide offering of services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use.

The Respondent has not answered the Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant.

Use of a famous mark in a domain name to point to a login screen to collect customer data is confusing Internet users for commercial gain, is disrupting the Complainant's business and is registration and use in bad faith.