{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102319",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-01-30 12:59:59",
    "domain_names": [
        "arcelormiittall.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "ARCELORMITTAL (SA)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "Sheila Prince NA"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is the leader in all major global steel markets including automotive, construction, household appliances and packaging, with leading research and development and technology, sizeable captive supplies of raw materials, and outstanding distribution networks with operations in more than 60 countries. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has shown that it owns valid trademark rights in France as well as domain name registration.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent registered the disputed domain name, <arcelormiittall.com> on January 17, 2019.\r\n",
    "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\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name should be transferred because each of the three elements required in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been established.\r\n\r\nFirstly, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark ARCELORMITTAL. Complainant states that the addition of the letter “I” and the letter “L” to the trademark ARCELORMITTAL does not prevent confusing similarity with the trademark and branded goods ARCELORMITTAL. Complainant argues that the obvious misspelling of the trademark is a clear case of typosquatting. Moreover, Complainant states that the gTLD <.com> does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to Complainant’s trademark. Furthermore, the Complainant refers to decisions which acknowledged its rights in the sign ARCELORMITTAL. (WIPO Case No. D2018-0968, ArcelorMittal (SA) v. Rodrigues Carolina, Privacy Limited, <arcelormittel.com>; WIPO Case No D2017-2291, ArcelorMittal (SA) v. Askia Bonga <groupe-arcelormittal.com>; WIPO Case No. D2017-2011, ArcelorMittal (SA) v. Nom Anonymisé <arcelormittal-fr.com>; WIPO Case D2016-1853, ArcelorMittal (SA) v. Cees Willemsen <arcelormittal.com> and <arclormittal.com>)\r\n\r\nSecondly, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. The Complainant claims that 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. The Complainant claims that Respondent does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Moreover, the Complainant provides a screenshot of the disputed domain name dated January 22, 2019 which shows that the disputed domain name redirects to a parking page featuring several pay-per-click links. The Complainant states that such use of the domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods and services nor is it a legitimate non-commercial or fair use.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Complainant states that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name and is using it in bad faith. Complainant argues that the misspelling of the trademark ARCELORMITTAL was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with Complainant’s trademark. Complainant further argues that the disputed domain name points to a parking page with commercial links related to the Complainant’s activities. Complainant argues that Respondent attempts to attract internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions and is therefore in default.\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": [
        "Nathalie Dreyfus"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-03-06 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant, ARCELORMITTAL S.A, is the owner of the French trademark ARCELORMITTAL ® No. 947686, registered August 3, 2007, covering services in classes 6, 7, 9, 12, 19, 21, 39, 40, 41 and 42.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also owns the domain name <arcelormittal.com> registered since January 27, 2006.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ARCELORMIITTALL.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}