{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102598",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-07-30 09:04:29",
    "domain_names": [
        "essararcelormittal.com",
        "essarmittal.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "ARCELORMITTAL (SA)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "Imran Syed"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it is the largest steel company in the world and that it is present in more than 60 countries.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that it supplies steel products in all major markets including automotive, construction, household appliances and packaging. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that it is the owner of the international trademarks \"ARCELORMITTAL\" and \"MITTAL\", registered before the registration of the disputed domain names. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that it owns an important domain names portfolio, including the domain name <arcelormittal.com> registered since January 27, 2006.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant considers that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its distinctive trademarks \"ARCELORMITTAL\" and \"MITTAL\".\r\n\r\nThe Complainant observes that the disputed domain names have been registered on the same date using the same registrar.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the addition of the word “ESSAR” is not sufficient to avoid the finding that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks. On the contrary, in the light of fact that the Complainant submitted a proposal for the acquisition of the company Essar Steel, the Complainant argues that the addition of the word \"ESSAR\" increases the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant's trademarks.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant submits that it is well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant's registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for the purposes of the UDRP. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant notes that it is also well established that the top-level domain should be disregarded when assessing confusing similarity. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names and it is not related in any way with the Complainant. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain names.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant clarifies that it does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant underlines that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademarks \"ARCELORMITTAL\" and \"MITTAL\", or apply for registration of the disputed domain names.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant notes that the disputed domain names resolve to a parking page with commercial links, some of which are related to the Complainant, therefore it contends that the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services by means of the disputed domain names, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of them. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant observes that past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the widely known trademarks \"ARCELORMITTAL\" and \"MITTAL\".\r\n\r\nThe Complainant points out that, given the distinctivness of the Complainant's trademarks and the Complainant's reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that the Respondent uses the disputed domain names in parking pages with commercial links and this use has the deliberate purpose of creating confusion, mistake and deceiving as to the affiliation, connection or association of the Respondent with the Complainant.\r\n\r\nTherefore, the Complainant considers that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names and is using them in bad faith.\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings that relate to the disputed domain names.",
    "no_response_filed": "No administratively compliant Response has been filed. ",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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 names (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 names have been registered and are 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": [
        "Michele Antonini"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-09-05 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the registrant of the international trademark registrations No. 947686, “ARCELORMITTAL”, registered on August 3, 2007, for goods and services in classes 6, 7, 9, 12, 19, 21, 39, 40, 41, 42, and No. 1198046, “MITTAL”, registered on December 5, 2013, for goods and services in classes 6 and 40.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names were registered by the Respondent on July 4, 2019. ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ESSARARCELORMITTAL.COM": "TRANSFERRED",
        "ESSARMITTAL.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}