{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-103508", "time_of_filling": "2021-01-14 09:15:45", "domain_names": [ "arcelormittalsmartersteels.com" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "ARCELORMITTAL S.A." ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Laurent Becker)", "respondent": [ "ates demir" ], "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 89.9 million tonnes crude steel made in 2019.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 9 January 2021 and is currently inactive.", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.", "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant says the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark in which it is included in its entirety and the addition of terms “smarter steels” is not sufficient to avoid the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant, its trademarks and domain names. 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, see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11. Consequently, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant says the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. According 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 UDRP.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not known as\/by 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 it. Thus, the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name. 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 . 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. Neither 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\nThe disputed domain name is not used. The Complainant contends that Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name since its registration, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. It demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Thus, in accordance with the foregoing, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant says the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant’s trademark is well known. Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademark, 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 (7 February2018) 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.\"). Please 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.”). Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. Furthermore, the disputed domain name is currently inactive.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent 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 trademark law. As prior WIPO UDRP panels have held, the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use. Please see for instance: WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows and WIPO Case No. D2000-0400, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. Please see WIPO Case No. DCO2018-0005, ArcelorMittal SA v. Tina Campbell. Thus, 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.", "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": [ "Victoria McEvedy" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-02-18 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant relies on its rights as the owner and registered proprietor of the international trademark n°947686 ArcelorMittal registered on 3 August 2007 registered in over 32 countries and in classes 06,07,09,12,19,21,39,40,41 and 42. \r\n\r\nThose countries include AU - BQ - CW - EM - GE - IS - JP - KR - NO - SG - SX - SY - TR - US - UZ and AL - AM - AZ - BA - BY - CH - CN - CU - DZ - EG - HR - IR - KE - KG - KP - KZ - LR - MA - MC - MD - ME - MK - MN - RS - RU - SD - SM - TJ - UA - VN and SG - US. \r\n\r\nIt also relies on its extensive use in trade internationally which makes it a well-known mark. \r\n\r\nIn common law jurisdictions it may have rights arising from use in trade. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant also owns a large domain name portfolio, including registered on 27 January 2006.\r\n", "decision_domains": { "ARCELORMITTALSMARTERSTEELS.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }