{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101687",
    "time_of_filling": "2017-09-19 10:09:18",
    "domain_names": [
        "arcelormittol.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Aneta Jelenová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "ARCELORMITTAL SA"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Maxime Benoist)",
    "respondent": [
        "micheal koppel"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant (ARCELORMITTAL S.A). is a company specialized in steel producing and it is the largest steel producing company in the world and market leader in steel for use in automotive, construction, household appliances and packaging with operations in more than 60 countries. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <arcelormittol.com> was registered on 2 September 2007 and is held by the Respondent. \r\n\r\nThe domain name website (i.e. website available under internet address containing the disputed domain name) is currently not used and has no content available to public (i.e. the disputed domain name is not currently associated with any active website).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant. \r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "The Parties' contentions are the following:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nCONFUSING SIMILARITY\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that: \r\n\r\n- The disputed domain name contains “ARCELOR” and “MITTOL” word elements, and it is thus almost identical (i.e. confusingly similar) to Complainant’s trademarks.\r\n\r\n- The replacement of the letter “A” by the letter “O” in the word MITTAL (i.e. MITTOL) is not sufficient to escape confusingly similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s trademarks. \r\n\r\n- The disputed domain name represents a clear case of so called “typosquatting” which means that the disputed domain name is based on an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark: ARCELORMITTOL instead of ARCELORMITTAL.\r\n\r\nThus, according to the Complainant the confusing similarity between Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain name is clearly established.\r\n\r\n\r\nNO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that:\r\n\r\n-\tThe Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\n-\tThe Complainant has not authorized, permitted or licensed the Respondent to use Complainant’s trademarks in any manner. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant whatsoever. On this record, Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\n-\tFurthermore, the domain name website has been during its existence inactive, which implies that there was no Respondent’s intention to use the domain name for legitimate purposes.\r\n \r\n-\tThe Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions in this regard. \r\n\r\n\r\nBAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that:\r\n\r\n-\tSeniority of the Complainant's trademarks predates the disputed domain name registration and such trademarks are well known in relevant business circles. The Respondent can be considered to be aware of the Complainant's trademark when registering the domain name due to well-known character thereof, which should have been checked by the Respondent by performing a simple internet search. \r\n\r\n-\tThe disputed domain (at the time of filing of the complaint) did not resolve to any active website. In the light of the foregoing, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and used with the sole purpose of selling the disputed domain name to the Complainant or .\r\n\t\r\n-\tIt is well-founded that registration of the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks which enjoys strong reputation, plus other facts, such as above described non-use of the disputed domain name and Respondent’s engagement in typosquatting, are sufficient to establish bad faith under the 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.\r\n\r\n-\tThe Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions contending that registering a domain name (i) incorporating trademarks that enjoy high level of notoriety and well-known character and at the same time (ii) abusing typosquatting, constitute prima facie registration in bad faith, despite a fact that such domain names are not genuinely used.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant presents the following evidence which has been assessed by the Panel:\r\n\r\n-\tInformation about the Complainant and its business;\r\n-\tExcerpts from trademark database regarding Complainant's trademarks;\r\n-\tExcerpts from WHOIS database regarding Complainant's domain names for “ARCELORMITTAL”;\r\n-\tExcerpt from WHOIS database regarding disputed domain name;\r\n-\tScreenshots of the disputed domain name website (evidencing non-use of the same);\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\nThe Respondent has not provided any response to the complaint.\r\n",
    "rights": "The Panel concluded that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.\r\n\r\nFor details, see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".\r\n",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "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.\r\n\r\nFor details, see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".\r\n",
    "bad_faith": "",
    "procedural_factors": "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.\r\n\r\nFor details, see \"Principal Reasons for the Decision\".\r\n",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "JUDr. Jiří Čermák"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2017-11-06 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is, inter alia, a registered owner of the following trademark containing a word element \"ARCELORMITTAL”:\r\n\r\n(i)\tARCELORMITTAL (word), International (WIPO) Trademark, priority date 25 May 2007, registration date 3 August 2007, trademark no. 947686, registered for goods and services in classes 6, 7, 9, 12, 19, 21, 39, 40, 41, and 42.\r\n\r\nbesides other  trademarks consisting of the \" ARCELOR“ or „MITTAL \" denominations.\r\n\r\n(collectively referred to as \"Complainant's trademarks\").\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has also registered a number of domain names under generic Top-Level Domains (\"gTLD\") and country-code Top-Level Domains (\"ccTLD\") containing the term “ARCELORMITTAL”.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ARCELORMITTOL.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}