{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101753",
    "time_of_filling": "2017-11-01 10:49:45",
    "domain_names": [
        "arcelormittalshow.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Aneta Jelenová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "ArcelorMittal"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)",
    "respondent": [
        "Colin Turnbull"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "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 operations in more than 60 countries. It holds sizeable captive supplies of raw materials and operates extensive distribution networks.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is an individual based in Canada. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on October 12, 2017. It currently resolves to a website that displays information in relation with the Complainant.\r\n\r\nFACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nCAC Case n° 101402 CREDIT AGRICOLE SA v. William Philippe: finding that (“the addition of the term <SMS> is only a minor variation and therefore not sufficient to distinguish the disputed domain names <smscreditagricole.com> and <credit-agricole-sms.net> from the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE; the Complainant’s trademark CREDIT AGRICOLE constitutes the dominant component of the disputed domain names.”).\r\n\r\nUse of a disputed domain name to benefit commercially by creating confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the content therein can constitute bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith where the respondent hosted a website that “duplicated Complainant’s mark and logo, giving every appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant’s business . . . to perpetrate a fraud upon individual shareholders who respected the goodwill surrounding the AIG mark”); \r\n\r\nsee also Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings, pending or decided, relating to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT: \r\nIdentical or confusingly similar\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has provided that it has trademark rights as listed in the \"Identification of Rights\" section above. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark, incorporating the Complainant's trademark in its entirety with the addition of the generic term \"show\", which according to the CAC Case N°101402 CREDIT AGRICOLE SA v. William Philippe, the addition of a generic term associated to a trademark does not create a new or different right to the mark or diminish confusing similarity. The Complainant also contends that the use of the \".com\" generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\n\r\nNo rights or legitimate interests\r\n\r\nThe Complainant underlines that a complainant is required to make out prima-facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests and the burden of proof then shifts to the respondent to rebut the complainant’s prima-facie case, according to WIPO Case D2003-0455 Croatia Airlines d .d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the Respondent is not known, has no relationship with the Complainant's business and is not authorized or licensed to use the trademark ARCELORMITTAL®.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and has only registered the disputed domain name to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark. The disputed domain name points to a website that displays information in relation with the Complainant, such as the Complainant's logo reproduced in its entirety.\r\n\r\nRegistered and used in bad faith\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that, given the the notoriety of the Complainant and the use of the disputed domain name, there is no doubt that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the use of the disputed domain name demonstrates that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv) by attempting to attract Internet traffic and commercially benefit from the goodwill of the ARCELORMITTAL trademark by passing itself off as Complainant, as Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Busby FA 156251(Forum May 30, 2003) and Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) have stated. \r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNo administratively compliant response has been filed.",
    "rights": "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).",
    "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).",
    "bad_faith": "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).",
    "procedural_factors": "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.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Nathalie Dreyfus"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2017-12-22 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has supplied evidence that it is the owner of the following trademark rights:\r\n\r\nInternational Trade mark No. 947686 ARCELORMITTAL® in Classes 06, 07, 09, 12, 19, 21, 39, 40, 41, and 42, registered on August 3, 2007 (renewed).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant has supplied evidence that it is the owner of the following domain name rights:\r\n\r\n<arcelormittal.com>, registered and used since January 27, 2006.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ARCELORMITTALSHOW.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}