{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102660",
    "time_of_filling": "2019-09-03 15:40:56",
    "domain_names": [
        "arcelor-mittalmonterrey.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "ARCELORMITTAL (SA)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)",
    "respondent": [
        "Luis Patino"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nARCELORMITTAL S.A., the Complainant, is a company specialized in steel production. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the largest steel producer 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 is the owner of the international trade mark number 947686 for the word mark, ARCELORMITTAL, and many other national registered marks. The Complainant also owns a substantial domain name portfolio, including its main domain name <arcelormittal.com> registered on 27 January 2006. The website is at: that domain, www.arcelormittal.com.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name <arcelor-mittalmonterrey.com> was registered on 27 August 2019 and currently resolves to a website displaying the Complainant’s trade mark and information regarding the Complainant and its activities. \r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other proceedings. ",
    "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nRights\r\n\r\nThe Complainant says that the disputed domain name <arcelor-mittalmonterrey.com> is confusingly similar to its name and registered trade mark, the word mark, ARCELORMITTAL. \r\n\r\nIt says the addition of the geographical term “MONTERREY” and a hyphen to the trade mark, ARCELORMITTAL, is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trade mark. \r\n\r\nOn the contrary, it says the addition of the term “MONTERREY” compounds the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trade mark as the Complainant is in fact present and doing business in Monterrey, Mexico. \r\n\r\nPlease see similar case CAC No. 102470, ARCELORMITTAL (SA) v. acero (“the addition of the ‘‘MEXICO‘‘ word is not enough to abolish the similarity as it is a geographic term and moreover, it increases the confusion since the Complainant Arcelormittal S.A. operates in Mexico.”).\r\n\r\nIt is well established that the gTLD is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded for similarity. See the Forum Case No. FA 153545, Gardline Surveys Ltd v. Domain Finance Ltd. (\"The addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain name.\").\r\n\r\nConsequently, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trade mark.  \r\n\r\n\r\nFair Use and Legitimate Interests \r\n\r\nAccording to WIPO Case No. D2003-0455 Croatia Airlines d. d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name. 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 by the disputed domain name. See for instance the 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> (“Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group.” The Panel therefore finds under Policy 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy 4(c)(ii).”).\r\n\r\nThe 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 to the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with, the Respondent. No license or authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trade mark or apply for registration of the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\nMoreover, the disputed domain name resolves to a website which looked like the official website of the Complainant. Thus, the owner of the disputed domain name obviously tries to pass itself off as the Complainant or as an affiliate of the Complainant for its own commercial gain. Therefore, the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. \r\n\r\nPlease see the Forum Case No. 1649982, DramaFever Corp. v. olxhost c\/o olxhost (“Using the domain name in a manner designed to allow Respondent to pass itself off as Complainant is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii).”).\r\n\r\nThus, in accordance with the foregoing, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\n\r\nBad Faith\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s trade mark is well known. Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trade mark in the following cases: See 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 see CAC Case No. 101667, ARCELORMITTAL v. Robert Rudd (\"The Panel is convinced that the Trademark is highly distinctive and well-established.\").\r\n\r\nMoreover, the disputed domain name resolves to a website which displayed the Complainant’s trade mark. This confirms that the Respondent knew about the Complainant and its rights. See CAC Case No. 102470, ARCELORMITTAL (SA) v. acero (“the https:\/\/arcelormitalmexico.com\/ link contains images of the Complainant’s trademark and creates the false impression as the disputed domain name is the official domain name of the Complainant.”).\r\n\r\nGiven the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trade mark and reputation and the facts set out above, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trade mark. \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\nTherefore, the Complainant contends that by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the web site.\r\n\r\nSee similar case CAC No. 102470, ARCELORMITTAL (SA) v. acero (“the addition of the ‘‘MEXICO‘‘ word is not enough to abolish the similarity as it is a geographic term and moreover, it increases the confusion since the Complainant Arcelormittal S.A. operates in Mexico.”). See also for instance the 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> (“Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group.” The Panel therefore finds under Policy 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy 4(c)(ii).”). See also the Forum Case No. 1649982, DramaFever Corp. v. olxhost c\/o olxhost (“Using the domain name in a manner designed to allow Respondent to pass itself off as Complainant is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii).”).\r\n\r\nPast panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trade mark, 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\nThe Complainant contends that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith and is using it in bad faith. \r\n\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 trade mark 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 the Policy were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Victoria McEvedy"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2019-10-14 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of the registered international trade mark, number 947686, being the word mark, ARCELORMITTAL, registered on 3 August 2007 in classes 06,07,09,12,19,21,39,40,41,42, in 15 countries under the Madrid Protocol and another 30 countries under the Madrid Agreement. The Complainant is also the owner of a portfolio of national registered marks worldwide and has rights arising from use in trade in countries that recognize those rights. The mark is a well known mark or a mark with a reputation. \r\n\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ARCELOR-MITTALMONTERREY.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}