{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104286",
    "time_of_filling": "2022-01-25 08:54:19",
    "domain_names": [
        "rcelormittal.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "ARCELORMITTAL (SA)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "AMANDA HOBUS"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a company specialized in steel producing.\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 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 Complainants recalls previous UDRP cases:\r\n\r\n- CAC Case No. 102360, ARCELORMITTAL (SA) v. Milton Liqours lLC <arcelornmittall.com>;\r\n\r\n- CAC Case No. 102349, ARCELORMITTAL S.A. v. Arcelormittal <arcelomittal.org>;\r\n\r\n- CAC Case No. 102346, ARCELORMITTAL (SA) v. Sani Cermaic <acelormitall.com>.\r\n\r\n\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 pragraph 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy pragraph 4(c)(ii).”);\r\n\r\n- FORUM Case No. FA 699652, The Braun Corporation v. Wayne Loney;\r\n\r\n- FORUM Case No. 1765498, Spotify AB v. The LINE The Line \/ The Line (“Complainant contends the <spotfy.com> domain name differs from the SPOTIFY mark only by the omission of the letter “i\" in the mark, and is thus a classic case of typosquatting. […] The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration of the domain name is typosquatting and indicates it lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name per Policy pragraph 4(a)(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 pragraph 4(a)(ii).”).\r\n\r\n\r\nPast panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademark ARCELORMITTAL® in the following cases:\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\r\nWIPO 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.”).    ",
    "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": "NO 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).\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name differs only from the Complainant’s domain name and trademark in that it omits the first letter \"A\" in ARCELORMITTAL. However this still leaves the visual impression near to identical and the auditive impression identical when pronounced in English.\r\n\r\nThis is, according to this Panel, not sufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s rights, as the overall impression, including the visual, auditive and conceptual, of both the Complainant’s rights and the disputed domain name remain quasi-identical and confusingly similar.\r\n\r\n\r\nConsequently, the Panel – like previous panels – views this to be a clear case of typosquatting and refers in this case to:\r\n\r\n- CAC Case No. 102360, ARCELORMITTAL (SA) v. Milton Liqours lLC <arcelornmittall.com>;\r\n\r\n- CAC Case No. 102349, ARCELORMITTAL S.A. v. Arcelormittal <arcelomittal.org>;\r\n\r\n- CAC Case No. 102346, ARCELORMITTAL (SA) v. Sani Cermaic <acelormitall.com>.\r\n\r\n\r\nAs well-established in case-law, the addition of the gTLD “.COM” does not change the overall impression and this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s rights.  ",
    "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).\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with him nor authorized by him in any way to use Complainant´s trademarks in a domain name or on a website. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.  ",
    "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\r\nGiven the circumstances of the case, including the provided information of the use and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL and the distinctive nature of this mark, it is inconceivable to the Panel in the current circumstances that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without prior knowledge of the Complainant and the Complainant’s mark.\r\n\r\nThe Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website. The disputed domain name however enables the Respondent to send emails using an e-mail address that contains the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThough no concrete examples of such use have been presented to this Panel, it seems 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. The Panel notes in this connection that passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith use under 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": [
        "Lars Karnoe"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-02-23 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the proprietor of the international trademark No. 947686 “ARCELORMITTAL” registered 3 August 2007 in classes 6, 7, 9, 12, 19, 21, 39, 40, 41 and 42 designating numerous countries around the world.\r\n\r\nAlso, the Complainant has registered a significant domain portfolio, including <arcelormittal.com> which was registered on 27 January 2006.",
    "decision_domains": {
        "RCELORMITTAL.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}