{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102608",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-08-01 11:28:44",
    "domain_names": [
        "arccelormital.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "ARCELORMITTAL (SA)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "Cortest Inc"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant 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 disputed domain name was registered on 18 July 2019 and points to a parking page with commercial links.\r\n\r\nThe Registrar confirmed that the Respondent is the current registrant of the disputed domain name and that the language of the registration agreement is English.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not filed a Response.\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": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant made the following contentions: \r\n\r\nWith respect to identical or similar domain requirement, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark. According to the Complainant, the addition of the letter \"C\" and the deletion of the letter \"T\" to the \"ARCELORMITTAL\" trademark is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. The Complainant contends that this is a clear case of \"typosquatting“, i.e. the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant mentions that previous panels found that the slight spelling variations did not prevent a disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark (in particular in CAC cases No. 102360, No. 102346 and No. 102319).\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, it is well established that TLDs may typically be disregarded in the assessment under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy when comparing disputed domain names and trademark. Consequently, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\nRegarding Respondent's rights or legitimate interests, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name, but as \"Cortest Inc\". 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. The 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. \r\n\r\nNeither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nBesides, the Complainant also claims that the disputed domain name is a typo squatted version of the \"ARCELORMITTAL\" trademark. Typosquatting is the practice of registering a domain name in an attempt to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors and can be evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant also argues that the disputed domain name points to a parking page with commercial links. Referring to past panels having found it was not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial or fair use, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nTurning to the bad faith argument, the Complainant makes the following assertions.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its distinctive \"ARCELORMITTAL\" trademark, which is widely known. The Complainant refers to earlier panel decisions that confirmed the notoriety of the \"ARCELORMITTAL\" trademark (in particular, CAC cases No. 101908 and No. 101667).\r\n\r\nGiven the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, the Complainant believes it reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark (referring to WIPO Case No. DCO2018-0005).\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant states that the misspelling of the \"ARCELORMITTAL\" trademark was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark, which previous UDRP panels had found to be evidence of bad faith. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant further refers to the fact that the disputed domain name points to a parking page with commercial links. The Complainant contends that the Respondent attempts to attract internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark, which past panels found to be evidence of bad faith registration and use. \r\n\r\nThus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name and is using it in bad faith.\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. Vojtěch Chloupek"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-09-08 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the registered owner of the international trademark registration no. 947686 for the \"ArcelorMittal\" word, registered on 3 August 2007 in classes 6, 7, 9, 12, 19, 21, 39, 40, 41 and 42 designating numerous countries around the world.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the registered holder of the domain name <arcelormittal.com>, registered since 27 January 2006.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ARCCELORMITAL.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}