{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102535",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-06-18 10:16:33",
    "domain_names": [
        "canada-arcelormittal.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "ARCELORMITTAL (SA)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "Todd Peter"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\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”. Please see WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin.\r\n\r\nPlease see for instance: \r\n\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2000-1164, Boeing Co. v. Bressi (“the Respondent has advanced no basis on which he could conclude that it has a right or legitimate interest in the domain names”);\r\n\r\n- NAF Case No. FA 1773444, Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. Joannet Macket \/ JM Consultants (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s lack of content at the disputed domain shows the lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy 4(c)(i) and (iii).”).\r\n\r\nPast panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademark ARCELORMITTAL® in the following cases:\r\n\r\n- 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.\") \r\n\r\n- CAC 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 for instance:\r\n\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows;\r\n\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2000-0400, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen.\r\n\r\n\r\nPARTIES’ CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\n• The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the protected mark\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the disputed domain name <canada-arcelormittal.com> is confusingly similar to its trademark ARCELORMITTAL®. The Complainant contends that the addition of the geographic term “CANADA” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark ARCELORMITTAL®. The Complainant states that 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. \r\n\r\nSince the Complainant is present in Canada, according to the Complainant, the addition of the term “CANADA” worsens the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL®. \r\n\r\n\r\n• Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and it 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. In addition, the disputed domain name is currently inactive. Therefore, the Complainant contends that the 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\n\r\n• The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name and is using it in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <canada-arcelormittal.com> is confusingly similar to its distinctive trademark ARCELORMITTAL® which is widely known. Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademark ARCELORMITTAL® in the cases listed above. The Complainant states that given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. In addition, the disputed domain name is inactive. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law.  \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": "RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\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": [
        "Mgr. Barbora Donathová, LL.M."
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-07-19 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "According to the Complainant, ARCELORMITTAL S.A. 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 states and provides evidence to support, that it is the owner of international trademark registration n° 947686 ARCELORMITTAL® (registered on August 3, 2007), predating the date of registration of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further states that it 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.  ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "CANADA-ARCELORMITTAL.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}