{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102185",
    "time_of_filling": "2018-10-03 10:20:43",
    "domain_names": [
        "arcelormittalrecruitment.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "ArcelorMittal (SA)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "Domain eRegistration "
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nPlease see WIPO Case No. D2008-1395, Société Air France v. job recruitment (“The addition of a descriptive word such as “recruitment” does nothing to remove the likelihood of confusion between the Domain Name and the Complainant's mark. Recruitment is an activity that all business entities are likely to undertake, and the Complainant itself devotes an entire website to staff recruitment. If anything, the addition of the word “recruitment” exacerbates the likelihood of confusion. Adding to a complainant's trade mark a word which is descriptive or suggestive of one of a complainant's activities carried out under its mark, is more likely to increase the likelihood of confusion than reduce it”).\r\n\r\nBesides, 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”. Please see WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin.\r\n\r\n\r\nPlease see for instance:\r\n\r\n-\tFORUM Case No. FA 1363660, Better Existence with HIV v. AAA (“[E]ven though the disputed domain name still resolves to Complainant’s own website, Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name in its own name fails to create any rights or legitimate interests in Respondent associated with the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”);\r\n\r\n-\tFORUM Case No. FA 1766366, Lockheed Martin Corporation v. Richard F Ambrose \/ Lockheed Martin Corporation (“[…] in that the domain name redirects Internet users to Complainant’s own official website. Such a use is indeed neither a bona fide offering of goods or services by means of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of it under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)”);\r\n\r\n-\tFORUM Case No. FA 1337658, Direct Line Ins. plc v. Low-cost-domain (“The Panel finds that using Complainant’s mark in a domain name over which Complainant has no control, even if the domain name redirects to Complainant’s actual site, is not consistent with the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or ¶ 4(c)(iii) . . .”).\r\n\r\nPast panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademark ARCELORMITTAL® in the following cases:\r\n\r\n-\tCAC 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.\") \r\n\r\n-\tCAC Case No. 101667, ARCELORMITTAL v. Robert Rudd (\"The Panel is convinced that the Trademark is highly distinctive and well-established.\")\r\n\r\nPlease see WIPO Case No. DCO2018-0005, ArcelorMittal SA v. Tina Campbell (“The Panel finds that the trademark ARCELORMITTAL is so well-known internationally for metals and steel production that it is inconceivable that the Respondent might have registered a domain name similar to or incorporating the mark without knowing of it.”).\r\n\r\nPlease see FORUM Case No. FA 1382148, Verizon Trademark Servs. LLC v. Boyiko (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name, even where it resolves to Complainant’s own site, is still registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”)",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "There are no other legal proceedings related to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO 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": [
        "Mr. Etienne Wéry"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2018-11-09 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "International trademark n° 947686 ARCELORMITTAL registered on August 3, 2007.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ARCELORMITTALRECRUITMENT.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}