{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104101",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-10-26 09:12:14",
    "domain_names": [
        "arcebrmittal.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "ARCELORMITTAL (SA)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "JOSE JULIO"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2020-3457, ArcelorMittal (Société Anonyme) v. Name Redacted <arcelormltal.com> (“As the disputed domain name differs from the Complainant’s trademark by just two letters, it must be considered a prototypical example of typosquatting – which intentionally takes advantage of Internet users that inadvertently type an incorrect address (often a misspelling of the complainant’s trademark) when seeking to access the trademark owner’s website. WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 1.9 states that “[a] domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element.”).\r\n\r\nComplainant refers to:\r\n\r\n- 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\n- Forum Case No. 1597465, The Hackett Group, Inc. v. Brian Herns \/ The Hackett Group (“The Panel agrees that typosquatting is occurring, and finds this is additional evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests under Policy 4(a)(ii).”).\r\n\r\n- 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.\"); \r\n\r\n- CAC Case No. 101667, ARCELORMITTAL v. Robert Rudd (\"The Panel is convinced that the Trademark is highly distinctive and well-established.\");\r\n\r\n- 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\n- Forum Case No. FA 877979, Microsoft Corporation v. Domain Registration Philippines (\"In addition, Respondent’s misspelling of Complainant’s MICROSOFT mark in the <microssoft.com> domain name indicates that Respondent is typosquatting, which is a further indication of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(a)(iii).\");\r\n\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows;\r\n\r\n- WIPO Case No. D2000-0400, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen;\r\n\r\n- CAC Case No. 102827, JCDECAUX SA v. Handi Hariyono (“There is no present use of the disputed domain name but there are several active MX records connected to the disputed domain name. It is concluded that it is inconceivable that the Respondent will be able to make any good faith use of the disputed domain name as part of an e-mail address.”).\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nPARTIES’ CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\n• The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the protected mark\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the disputed domain name <arcebrmittal.com> is confusingly similar to its trademark ARCELORMITTAL. The Complainant contends that the obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL, i.e. the substitution of the letters “L” and “O” by the letter “B”, is characteristic of a typosquatting practice intended to create confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. Previous panels have found that the slight spelling variations do not prevent a domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.\r\n\r\n\r\n• Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and it 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 ARCELORMITTAL, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also claims that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the trademark ARCELORMITTAL. Typosquatting is the practice of registering a domain name in an attempt to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors and can evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the disputed domain name redirects to an index page. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services by means of the disputed domain name, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of it.\r\n\r\n\r\n• The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name and is using it in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <arcebrmittal.com> is confusingly similar to its distinctive trademark ARCELORMITTAL. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that 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.\r\n\r\nAlso, the Complainant states the misspelling of the trademark ARCELORMITTAL was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\nIn addition, the disputed domain name resolves to an index page. The 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 disputed 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.\r\n\r\nFinally, although the disputed domain name appears to be unused, it has been set up with MX records which suggests that it may be actively used for e-mail purposes.    ",
    "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": "RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nNO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n\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. Barbora Donathová, LL.M."
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-11-23 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "According to the Complainant, ARCELORMITTAL S.A. 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 71.5 million tonnes crude steel made in 2020. It holds sizeable captive supplies of raw materials and operates extensive distribution networks.\"\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states and provides evidence to support, that it is the owner of international trademark registration n° 947686 ARCELORMITTAL (registered on August 3, 2007), predating the date of registration of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further states that it also owns an important domain names portfolio, including the same distinctive wording \"ARCELORMITTAL\", such as the domain name <arcelormittal.com> registered since January 27, 2006.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ARCEBRMITTAL.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}