{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-102921", "time_of_filling": "2020-02-18 09:26:38", "domain_names": [ "mittalferroalloys.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "ARCELORMITTAL (SA)" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)", "respondent": [ "liu shuai" ], "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 “MITTAL” (registration n°1198046) dated December 5, 2013 and the Complainant also holds domain names bearing “MITTAL” such as registration dated January 3, 2003.\r\n\r\nOn January 28, 2020, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name . The domain name is currently available on www.mittalferroalloys.com and being used as an online gaming and betting website.\r\n\r\nOn February 4, 2020, the Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent did not reply to the cease and desist letter sent by the Complainant.\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 “MITTAL” and also is the owner of the domain names bearing the sign “MITTAL” such as .\r\n\r\n1. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark “MITTAL ” as it bears the Complainant’s “MITTAL” trademark as a whole. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant alleges that the addition of the generic term “FERROALLOYS” is not sufficient to abolish the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the “MITTAL” trademark. Furthermore, the addition of the “FERROALLOYS” word even increases the likelihood of confusion since “FERROALLOYS” is an alloy of iron with one or more other metals used in the production of steel and accordingly it directly refers to the Complainant’s activity field.\r\n\r\nSuch attempts have been disapproved in various decisions e.g. WIPO Case No. D2018-1770, Credit Mutuel Arkea v. Sun Xiao Cheng.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also alleges that the addition of the gTLD “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark “MITTAL”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to earlier Panel decision WIPO Case No. D2006-0451, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that many prior Panel decisions have accepted the Complainant’s rights such as:\r\n\r\n- CAC Case No. 102464, ARCELORMITTAL (SA) v. Fundacion Comercio Electronico ;\r\n- CAC Case No. 102294, ArcelorMittal (SA) v. ANKIT ENTERPRISES , , ; and\r\n- CAC Case No. 102186, ArcelorMittal (SA) v. david lopez .\r\n\r\n\r\n2. 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 but he is known as “Liu Shuai”. 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 (“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).”) and 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 “MITTAL”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant argues that the disputed domain name redirects to a login page of an online gaming and betting website. Thus, the Complainant argues that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in a way that fails to confer rights and legitimate interests as it is used to promote unrelated services.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant refers to earlier Panel decision Forum Case No. FA1808541, Baylor University v. Pan Pan Chen \/ Chen Pan Pan. (“Complainant argues that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to offer services completely unrelated to those offered by Complainant. Using a confusingly similar domain to promote unrelated services can evince a lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”).\r\n\r\n\r\n3. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s distinctive trademark “MITTAL”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the “MITTAL” is a widely known trademark and its notoriety has been accepted within the earlier decisions such as WIPO Case No. D2018-1086, ArcelorMittal S.A. v. Registrant of lakshmimittal.org, c\/o WHOIStrustee.com Limited \/ Zeus Holding Market Ltd. (\"The Domain Name wholly incorporates a well-known mark [MITTAL]”) and WIPO Case No. D2010-2049, Arcelormittal v. Mesotek Software Solutions Pvt. Ltd. (“the Complainant’s marks MITTAL and MITTAL STEEL have been widely used and are well-known.”).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the use of the term “FERROALLOYS” cannot be evaluated as a coincidence since “FERROALLOYS” is an alloy of iron with one or more other metals, used in the production of steel which is the Complainant’s activity field.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that taking into account the distinctive character and the well-known status of the “MITTAL” trademark; the Respondent was aware of such trademark while registering the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant alleges that the bad faith of the Respondent is supported within the fact that the Respondent never replied to the cease and desist letter sent by the Complainant on February 4, 2020.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name resolves to an online gaming and betting website and accordingly the Respondent has an intention to attract the users for commercial gain.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that prior Panel decisions have accepted the bad faith of the Respondent in similar cases such as Forum Case No. FA893000, The Vanderbilt University v. U Incorporated. (“By diverting Internet users to its own website and promoting books unrelated to Complainant’s university under the VANDERBILT mark, Respondent is taking advantage of the confusing similarity between the domain name and Complainant’s VANDERBILT in order to profit from the goodwill associated with the mark, and that such registration and use constitutes bad faith under Policy 4(b)(iv).”).\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": "2020-04-01 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has submitted evidence, which the Panel accepts, showing that it is the registered owner of the IR trademark MITTAL (Registration n°1198046) dated December 5, 2013.\r\n\r\nMoreover, the Complainant is also the owner of the domain names bearing the sign “MITTAL” such as registration dated January 3, 2003.\r\n", "decision_domains": { "MITTALFERROALLOYS.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }