Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-109055

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 Registered Trademark no. 947686 for the word mark ARCELORMITTAL, registered on August 3, 2007 in Classes 6, 7, 9, 12, 19, 21, 39, 40, 41 and 42, designated in respect of multiple territories.

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, having manufactured 55.6 million tonnes of crude steel in 2025. It holds sizeable supplies of raw materials and operates extensive distribution networks.

In addition to the Complainant’s ARCELORMITTAL registered trademark, the Complainant owns a domain name portfolio containing domain names such as <arcelormittal.com>, registered since January 27, 2006.

The disputed domain name was registered on September 30, 2026 and resolves to a login page displaying the Complainant’s logo and trademark. Said page is titled “Painel - Pagamento ArcelorMittal”, which the Panel machine translates from Portuguese as “ArcelorMittal Payment Dashboard”. According to the Complainant's uncontested translation from Portuguese, the hyphenated phrase in the disputed domain name, “guia-de-pagamento”, means “payment slip” in English. The Panel machine translates it as “payment guide” but this difference is not material for present purposes.

Complainant:

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ARCELORMITTAL trademark. The addition of the term “guia de pagamento”, meaning “payment slip” in Portuguese, is not sufficient to escape a finding of confusing similarity in respect of the disputed domain name. This difference does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark, or prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant and its trademark. A domain name that wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for the purposes of the UDRP.

The addition of the suffix “.online” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark or prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its associated domain name.

The Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name. Previous panels under the Policy have held that a respondent is not commonly known by a domain name if the Whois information is not similar thereto.

The Respondent is not related to the Complainant in any way. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for the Respondent and has no business with it. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s ARCELORMITTAL trademark, nor permission to apply for registration of the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name resolves to a login page displaying the Complainant’s logo and trademark. This page could be used in order to collect personal information of the Complainant’s clients. Thus, the Respondent’s website cannot be considered as a bona fide offering of services or fair use, since the website can mislead consumers into believing that they are accessing the Complainant’s website.

The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s distinctive ARCELORMITTAL trademark. Said trademark is widely known.

Previous panels under the Policy have confirmed the notoriety of the Complainant’s trademark. A previous case under the Policy noted that the Complainant’s said trademark is widely well-known, and the panel in another case found that said mark is highly distinctive and well-established. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark.

The disputed domain name resolves to a login page displaying the Complainant’s logo and trademark, which page contains no information about the Respondent. Therefore, by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website. The Respondent can collect personal information through this website, namely passwords. Previous panels under the Policy have held that the use of a domain name in this way constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

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 Complainant has demonstrated to the Panel’s satisfaction that it has UDRP-relevant rights in its ARCELORMITTAL trademark by virtue of the registered trademark listed above. The Second-Level Domain of the disputed domain name begins with an alphanumerically identical reproduction of the Complainant’s said trademark, to which a term, “guia-de-pagamento” (with hyphen separators), has been added. The addition of such term is insufficient to distinguish the Complainant’s mark from the disputed domain name, and the said mark is recognizable therein based upon a straightforward side-by-side comparison. The generic Top-Level Domain in respect of the disputed domain name, namely “.online”, is typically disregarded for the purposes of the comparison under the first element analysis of the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ARCELORMITTAL trademark.

With regard to the second element of the Policy, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name (according to a review of the corresponding Whois (or RDAP) information), that the Respondent is neither affiliated with, licensed nor authorized by the Complainant in any manner, that the Complainant carries out no activity for the Respondent and has no business with it, and that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent by the Complainant to make any use of the Complainant’s said trademark or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name points to a login page masquerading as an official page of the Complainant (due to reproduction of the Complainant’s said trademark and logo), such that the Respondent cannot be making a bona fide offering of goods or services.

The Panel finds that the Complainant’s various contentions, taken together, are sufficient to constitute the requisite prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (see, for example, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 2.1). The Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s allegations and evidence in this case, and has failed to set out any alleged rights or legitimate interests which it might have claimed in the disputed domain name. The use of the disputed domain name strongly suggests an intent on the Respondent’s part to capture personal data from the Complainant’s customers, which activity confers no rights or legitimate interests upon the Respondent. There are no submissions or evidence on the record which might serve to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Turning to the question of registration and use in bad faith, it may be noted that the Complainant’s ARCELORMITTAL trademark registration long pre-dates the registration of the disputed domain name. Previous cases under the Policy note that the said trademark is very well-known (see, for example, ArcelorMittal (Société Anonyme) v. Robert Rudd, CAC-UDRP-101667, where the panel found that the said mark is highly distinctive and well-established). As noted above, the disputed domain name incorporates such mark as its first element. In these circumstances, it is entirely reasonable to infer that the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent with an awareness of the Complainant and its rights, and as noted above, the use of the disputed domain name demonstrates an intent to target the Complainant and its rights. Furthermore, in the absence of any reasonable explanation, the incorporation of such a well-known trademark into a domain name may be, in and of itself, an indication of bad faith.

The disputed domain name is being used for a login page displaying the Complainant’s logo and trademark. Said page is not officially sanctioned by the Complainant. In the absence of any explanation from the Respondent, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent intends to use such page to capture personal data, including passwords and usernames, from the Complainant’s customers who may believe that the login page leads to an official payment site of the Complainant (given the combination in the disputed domain name of the Complainant’s mark with the term “guia de pagamento”, meaning “payment slip” in the Complainant’s uncontested translation, or “payment guide” in the Panel’s machine translation).

This use of the disputed domain name could therefore conceivably lead to the Respondent receiving sensitive personal data from the Complainant’s customers, who would be confused by the presence of the Complainant’s well-known mark in the disputed domain name into believing that they were sending such information to the Complainant. This could not be considered to be a good faith use of the disputed domain name.

In all of these circumstances, the Panel considers that the Complainant has made out a sufficient case of registration and use in bad faith under the Policy. The Respondent has not filed a Response in this case and therefore has not addressed the Complainant’s assertions of bad faith registration and use to any extent. No explanation has been presented by the Respondent that might have suggested that its actions regarding the disputed domain name were in good faith.

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