{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102470",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-05-02 10:02:27",
    "domain_names": [
        "arcelormitalmexico.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Šárka Glasslová (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "ARCELORMITTAL (SA)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "acero"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The Complainant is a company specialized in steel producing for use in automotive, construction, household appliances and packaging. The complainant operates in more than 60 countries and it holds sizeable captive supplies of raw materials and operates extensive distribution networks. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant holds the international trademark registration for “ARCELORMITTAL” (registration n°947686) dated August 03, 2007 and the Complainant also holds domain names bearing “ARCELORMITTAL”.\r\n\r\nOn April 24, 2019, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name <arcelormitalmexico.com>. The domain name is currently available on https:\/\/arcelormitalmexico.com\/ and contains the Complainant‘s trademark ‘‘ARCELORMITTAL‘‘ and provides information regarding the Complainant and its activities.\r\n\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that are pending or decided and that relate to the disputed domain name. ",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a company specialized in steel producing and is the leading company in its sector. The Complainant operates in more than 60 countries.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant holds international trademark registration for the trademark “ARCELORMITTAL” and also is the owner of the domain names bearing the sign “ARCELORMITTAL” namely <arcelormittal.com> and <arcelormittalmexico.com>.\r\n\r\n1.\tTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO THE COMPLAINANT’S TRADEMARK „ARCELORMITTAL“\r\n\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks “ARCELORMITTAL” as it bears the Complainant’s “ARCELORMITTAL” trademark with the deletion of the letter ‘’T’’.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant alleges that the deletion of the letter ‘’T’’ and the addition of the geographic term ‘’MEXICO’’ are not sufficient to abolish the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the ‘’ARCELORMITTAL’’ trademark. Furthermore, the addition of the ‘’MEXICO’’ word even increase the likelihood of confusion since the Complainant is present in Mexico.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also states that the addition of the gTLD ‘’COM’’ does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark ‘’ARCELORMITTAL’’.\r\n\r\nSuch attempts have been disapproved in various decisions e.g. WIPO Case No. D2006-0451, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A., WIPO Case No. DMX2018-0024; ArcelorMittal (SA) v. Registration Private <arcelormittalmexico.mx>;\r\nWIPO Case No. D2018-1974, Arcelormittal (SA) v. مسعود ثقفي <arcelormittaliran.com>;\r\nWIPO Case No. D2018-1976, ArcelorMittal S.A. v. Ruben Gomez <arcelormittal-mexico.com>.\r\n\r\n2.\tTHE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME \r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights on the disputed domain name as the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name. The past panel decisions e.g. FORUM Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group <bobsfromsketchers.com> ,FORUM Case No. FA 699652, The Braun Corporation v. Wayne Loney are precedents for the concrete case.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also alleges that the Respondent has no rights to the disputed domain name since the Respondent has no relationship with Arcelormittal S.A. In fact, the Respondent and the Complainant do not carry out any activity or business together. \r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant states that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark “ARCELORMITTAL”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the ‘’ARCELORMITTAL’’ is a well-known trademark and its notoriety has been accepted within the earlier decisions such as CAC 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.\") and CAC Case No. 101667, ARCELORMITTAL v. Robert Rudd (\"The Panel is convinced that the Trademark is highly distinctive and well-established.\").\r\n\r\n3.\tTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the ‘’ARCELORMITTAL’’ is a well-known trademark and its notoriety has been accepted within the earlier decisions such as CAC 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.\") and CAC Case No. 101667, ARCELORMITTAL v. Robert Rudd (\"The Panel is convinced that the Trademark is highly distinctive and well-established.\").\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name resolves to a website which contains the Complainant’s well-known trademark and further the Respondent presents itself as ‘‘Arcelormittal Mexico‘‘. Therefore, the Complainant states that the Respondent knew about the Complainant and its rights before the registration of the disputed domain name.\r\n \r\nDisputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant alleges that, as is stated before, the disputed domain name resolves to a website which displays the Complainant’s trademark and where the Respondent identifies itself as ‘’Arcelormittal Mexico’’ and accordingly the Respondent has an intention to attract the users for commercial gain and the Respondent creates an impression as there exists a sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement between the Respondent and the Complainant.\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNO 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": [
        "Mrs Selma Ünlü"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-07-04 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has submitted evidence, which the Panel accepts, showing that it is the registered owner of the following:\r\n-\tInternational trademark ARCELORMITTAL (registration n°947686) dated August 03, 2007.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant is also the owner of the domain names bearing the sign “ARCELORMITTAL” such as the domain names arcelormittal.com registration since January 27, 2006 and arcelormittalmexico.com registration since October 12, 2017.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ARCELORMITALMEXICO.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}