{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103452", "time_of_filling": "2020-12-15 10:40:25", "domain_names": [ "arceloirmittal.com" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "ARCELORMITTAL (SA)" ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Enora Millocheau)", "respondent": [ "Frank " ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:\r\n\r\nI. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it 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 89.9 million tonnes crude steel made in 2019. \r\n\r\nIn addition to the trade mark mentioned above, the Complainant cites previous UDRP decisions (CAC and WIPO) which found ARCELORMITTAL to be well-known and highly distinctive. In addition, the Complainant also owns a number of domain names, including , which was registered on 27 January 2006. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 3 December 2020. The website is currently inactive although the MX servers are configured.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant avers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark ARCELORMITTAL. The addition of the letter “i” to the trade mark ARCELORMITTAL is insufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark. This is a clear case of “typosquatting”, a practice in which the domain name contains obvious misspellings of a complainant’s trade mark. \r\n\r\nRelying on previous CAC decisions, the Complainant contends that UDRP panels have decided that slight spelling variations do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the Policy. The Complainant also references the WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0), paragraph 1.11, to support its claim that the Top-Level Domain (TLD) suffix (“.com”) is typically disregarded in the assessment under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy when comparing disputed domain names and trade marks.\r\n\r\nII. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not carry out any activity for, or has any business with, the Complainant. There is no contractual arrangement between the parties to that effect, nor has the Complainant otherwise authorised the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trade mark, or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name on the Complainant’s behalf.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also asserts that the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name. On the contrary, the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the Complainant’s ARCELORMITTAL trade mark, and such practice evidences the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in connection with the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nLastly, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is currently inactive, and that the Respondent did not make any use of the disputed domain name since its registration. This confirms that the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nIII. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the misspelling of the ARCELORMITTAL trade mark is evidence of bad faith registration and use. \r\nMoreover, the disputed domain name is currently inactive and MX servers are configured. The Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and it is not possible to conceive any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain name 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 trade mark law. \r\n\r\nFinally, the Complainant cites WIPO UDRP panels to support its contention that the incorporation of a famous trade mark into a domain name, coupled with an active website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use. ", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings in respect of the disputed domain name. ", "no_response_filed": "No administratively compliant Response has been filed.\r\n", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trade 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).\r\n", "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": [ "Dr Gustavo Moser" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-01-11 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant relies upon the following registered trade mark:\r\n\r\n• International trade mark registration no. 947686, dated 3 August 2007, for the word mark ARCELORMITTAL, in classes 6, 7, 9, 12, 19, 21, 39, 40, 41 and 42 of the Nice Classification.\r\n", "decision_domains": { "ARCELOIRMITTAL.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }