{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102256",
    "time_of_filling": "2018-12-10 09:21:56",
    "domain_names": [
        "arcelormittal-planta.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "ArcelorMittal (SA)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "Fernando  Diaz Ramirez"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant, is a company specialized in steel producing in the world. See website at www.arcelormittal.com.\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. It holds sizeable captive supplies of raw materials and operates extensive distribution networks. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant also owns an important domain names portfolio, including the same distinctive wording ARCELORMITTAL, such as the domain name <arcelormittal.com> registered since January 27, 2006.\r\n\r\nThe Disputed Domain Name was registered on December 4, 2018. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the hosting provider of the website, which deleted the content of the website. However, before its intervention, the Disputed Domain Name resolved to a website displaying the Complainant’s trademark and looking like the official website of the Complainant.\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings relating to the Disputed Domain Name.",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\n1. The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the protected mark.\r\n\r\nThe Disputed Domain Name <arcelormittal-planta.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL. The trademark ARCELORMITTAL is included in its entirety.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the addition of the term “PLANTA” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark ARCELORMITTAL. It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant. \r\n\r\nOn the contrary, the addition of the term “PLANTA”, which means “PLANT” in Spanish, worsens the likelihood of confusion between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL, as the Complainant is a leader in steel industry. \r\n\r\nIt 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”. Moreover, the Complainant contends that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain suffix “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark ARCELORMITTAL. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant. \r\n\r\nSo the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL.\r\n\r\n2. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not known as the Disputed Domain Name.\r\n\r\nPast panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the Whois information was not similar to the disputed domain name. Thus, the Respondent is not known as the Disputed Domain Name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name and he 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. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL, or apply for registration of the Disputed Domain Name by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nMoreover, before the Complainant’s intervention, the Disputed Domain Name resolved to a website which looked like the official website of the Complainant. Thus, the owner of the Disputed Domain Name obviously tries to pass itself off as an affiliate of the Complainant in Mexico for its commercial gain. Therefore, the Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. \r\n\r\nThus, in accordance with the foregoing, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.\r\n\r\n\r\n3. The Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its distinctive trademark ARCELORMITTAL. The Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL is widely known. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. \r\n\r\nMoreover, before the Complainant’s intervention, the Disputed Domain Name resolved to a website, which displayed the Complainant’s trademark and looks like its official website. Therefore, the Complainant contends that 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 trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website.\r\n\r\nThus, Complainant contends that Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name and is using it in bad faith.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT: \r\n\r\nNo administratively compliant Response was 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": [
        "Rodolfo Carlos Rivas Rea"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-01-08 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "Complainant is the owner of the international trademark n° 947686 ARCELORMITTAL registered on August 3, 2007.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ARCELORMITTAL-PLANTA.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}