{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102084",
    "time_of_filling": "2018-07-12 09:25:17",
    "domain_names": [
        "arcelormitalsa.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Sandra Lanczová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "ArcelorMittal S.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Daria Baskova)",
    "respondent": [
        "Eco"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nTHE DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS\r\n\r\nThe 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. \r\nThe Complainant is the owner of the international trademark No. 947686 registered on August 3d, 2007 and owns a domain names portfolio.\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on June 22, 2018 and it redirects to the webpage of the official website of the Complainant’s subsidiary in South Africa.\r\nThe Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark. \r\nAccording to the Complainant the trademark is misspelled in the disputed domain name and the geographical abbreviation \"SA\" is added. \r\nThe Complainant claims that the omission of the letter “T” in the mark is not sufficient to avoid the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark and this represents a clear case of typosquatting, the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the addition of this geographical term in the country where the Complainant has business activities (South Africa) makes the domain name even more confusingly similar to its trademark. \r\nFurthermore, the Complainant claims that the addition of the gTLD “.com” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark of the Complainant. \r\n\r\nTHE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DOMAIN NAME\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent 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. \r\nNeither licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant. \r\nMoreover, the Complainant also claims that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of its trademark. Typosquatting can be evidence a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. \r\nThe disputed domain name redirects to the website of the Complainant’s subsidiary in South Africa without any authorization and the Complainant indicates that the Respondent cannot claim to have rights in a domain name merely by redirecting to one of the Complainant’s web sites. \r\n\r\nTHE DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND BEING USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and its reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. \r\nThe Complainant also states that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark due to the fact that the disputed domain name redirects to the website of the Complainant’s subsidiary in South Africa. This, in the view of the Complainant, is an indication that the Respondent is acting in bad faith. \r\nFinally, the Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the Complainant’s trademark and this also indicates bad faith. \r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n",
    "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": [
        "Igor Motsnyi"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-08-13 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "In this proceeding, the Complainant relies on the following trademark:\r\n\r\n-\tArcelorMittal  (word), International Trademark Registration No. 947686, registered on August 3, 2007.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ARCELORMITALSA.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}