{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102289",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-01-07 11:30:10",
    "domain_names": [
        "arcelormittal-globalrd.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "ARCELORMITTAL S.A."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "AM"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that it 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\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL. The Complainant contends that the addition of the term “GLOBALRD” (which can refer to “Global Research & Development”) 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, its trademark and the domain names associated. The addition of a generic term related to the Complainant and associated to its trademark does not create a new or different right to the mark or diminish confusing similarity. Besides, 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”.\r\n\r\nThe 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 names and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.\r\n\r\nMany UDRP decisions have confirmed the Complainant’s rights such as WIPO Case No. D2018-0968, WIPO Case No. D2017-2291, WIPO Case No. D2017-2011, WIPO Case No. D2016-1853.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nAccording to WIPO Case No. D2003-0455 Croatia Airlines d. d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., the 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. Past 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. (FORUM Case No. FA 1781783, FORUM Case No. FA 699652).\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, this disputed domain name points to an inactive page. Therefore, the Complainant contends that Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name since its registration, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. It demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.\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\nThe disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The 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 domain names with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark (WIPO Case No. DCO2018-0005).\r\n\r\nBesides, the disputed domain name is inactive since its registration. Inactively holding a confusingly similar domain name shows bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. \r\n\r\nAs prior WIPO UDRP panels have held, the incorporation of a famous trademark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use (WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, WIPO Case No. D2000-0400).",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other 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": [
        "JUDr. Petr Hostaš"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-02-04 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of the international trademark No 947686 ARCELORMITTAL registered on August 3rd, 2007. The Complainant also owns domain names including the same distinctive wording ARCELORMITTAL, such as the domain name <arcelormittal.com>, registered and used since January 27th, 2006. The disputed domain name <arcelormittal-globalrd.com> was registered on December 21, 2018.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ARCELORMITTAL-GLOBALRD.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}