{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-100546",
    "time_of_filling": "2012-12-27 10:26:54",
    "domain_names": [
        "ARCELORMITTALBUILDINGS.COM"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "ArcelorMittal SA"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": null,
    "respondent": [
        "Eric Widdifield"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "The following statements on factual matters are taken from information provided in the Complainant and the Response.\r\nCOMPLAINANT\r\nThe Complainant is a Luxembourg company specialising in steel production and submits that it is the largest steel producing company in the world and the market leader in steel for use in automotive, construction, household appliances and packaging.\r\nIt also submits that it is engaged in operations in more than 60 countries. In 2011 the CNN Fortune Global 500 World’s Biggest Companies ranked the Complainant on the 74th position in the world.  \r\nThe Complainant owns several trademarks in the form of words and combined words and logos and copies of those trademarks are annexed to the Complaint.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns several domain names and uses them for websites on the internet to further its business. Its principal website is www.arcelormittal.com, the corresponding domain name for which was registered on January 1, 2006.\r\nThe Complainant has also registered other domain names incorporating its trademark ARCELORMITTAL, such as:\r\n\r\narcelor.com registered on 29\/08\/2001\r\narcelor.net registered on 03\/09\/2001\r\narcelormittal.net registered on 25\/06\/2006\r\narcelormittal.info registered on 25\/06\/2006\r\narcelormittal.org registered on 18\/09\/2011\r\narcelormittal.biz registered on 25\/06\/2006\r\narcelormittal.us registered on 22\/12\/2006\r\narcelormittal.com.au registered on 04\/06\/2008\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT\r\n\r\nThe only submissions by the Respondent on the facts are those referred to in the Respondent's general submissions which provide as follows :\r\n\r\n\r\n1. The Complainant is a coal and iron ore mining company that manufactures steel. The Respondent is a high volume sales broker of prefabricated buildings. Clearly these are not the same industries. \r\n\r\n2. The Respondent as Domain name holder owns protected rights in a corresponding name.\r\n\r\n3. The respondent is a licensed and trademarked company in Florida, United States. \r\n\r\n4. The Domain name is identical to the Respondent's trademarked company name.\r\n\r\n5. Complainant and Respondent are not in the same industries.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "None of which the Panel is aware.",
    "no_response_filed": "CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that:\r\n\r\n\r\nI.\tThe disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark ARCELORMITTAL because the domain name consists of the entirety of the trademark and the generic expression “buildings”. The disputed domain name also includes the generic Top Level Domain “.com” which is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark and does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to a trademark of the Complainant. The Complainant’s principal argument is that the addition of a generic word such as buildings does no more than suggest that the domain name is concerned with buildings supplied under the ARCELORMITTAL trademark, which is not true.\r\n2.        The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.\r\n(a) Rights\r\nIn particular, the Complainant submits that a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Once such prima facie case is made, respondent carries the burden of rebutting that case and demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the UDRP. \r\nThe Complainant cites Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case D2003-0455 in support of those propositions.\r\n\r\nIn support of its prima facie case, the Complainant says that the Respondent 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 and has not granted a licence or authorization to the Respondent to make any use, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.\r\nFurther, according to the WHOIS record the Registrant of the disputed domain name is Eric Widdifield.\r\n\r\nMoreover, according to the evidence of  EDGAR Search Results, annexed to the Complaint, no company with the name  ARCELORMITTAL BUILDINGS  seems to exist. Moreover, there is no content on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves that could inform Internet users about the Respondent. \r\n\r\n(b) Legitimate interests\r\n\r\nThe Respondent uses the name of the Complainant  Arcelormittal in order to profit from the notoriety of the Complainant. The risk of confusion is high, especially due to the fact that the Respondent uses on its website terms related to the business of the Complainant such as ”Arcelormittal”, “Metal”, ”building”, “construction” and “steel”, thus increasing the potential for confusion.\r\n\r\nTherefore, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is neither a fair trademark use nor a bona fide offering of goods or services. \r\nThe Complainant submits that the Respondent’s activity under the disputed domain name is intended to disrupt the Complainant’s business and to derive an advantage from user confusion. \r\nThe Complainant asserts that such activity does not confer any rights or legitimate interests upon the Respondent. \r\n3.The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith\r\nThe categories of issues involved that are highlighted by the Complainant on this issue are: \r\n(i)\tRegistration of a well-known\/famous trade mark\r\n(ii)\tDisrupting the business of a competitor\r\n(iii)\tAttracting internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the domain name in bad faith for the following reasons :\r\n- According the whois, the Respondent is “ Eric Widdifield” and is not known in relation with the Complainant ; \r\n- the domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark ARCELORMITTAL ;\r\n- the website related to the domain name doesn’t give any clear information about the company  Arcelormittal Buildings ;\r\n- the domain name displays information regarding the steel construction market. The Respondent says that it is “America's leading steel building provider” and has built many buildings as indicated on the website. But on the website, a picture regarding a gymnasium, annexed to the Complaint, is the same picture as appears on another website of a competitor of the Complainant. Robertson Building Systems. \r\n- Moreover, the postal address “7950 Executive Center Drive, Suite 337 Miami, FL 33166” corresponds to virtual office : “ Offix solutions “ .\r\n\r\nOn those facts, the Complainant submits that the Respondent has created a risk of confusion with the Complainant, especially with the content of the website ; this reinforces the impression that the Complainant is related to this domain name. \r\n\r\nIn support of its submissions, the Complainant relies on the decisions in \r\n\t\t(a)\tArcelorMittal SA\r\n.v. BruceBruce Boggio\r\nCAC case n° 100440  and \r\n\r\n-(b)  Al-Durra Food Products Company v. Aldurra Group, WIPO Case No. D2010-1226 .\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Respondent contends that:\r\n\r\nI.\tDomain name is neither identical nor confusingly similar to the protected mark for the following reasons: \r\na.\tComplainant’s failure to meet standard of proof.\r\nb.\tOther:\r\nThe complainant is a coal and iron ore mining company that manufactures steel. The respondent is a high volume sales broker of prefabricated buildings. Clearly these are not the same industries. \r\nADDITIONAL EXPLANATIONS:\r\nII.\tThe Respondent has rights and\/or legitimate interest in the domain name(s)\r\nCategories of issues involved: \r\na.\tUse of, or demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. \r\nb.\tDomain name holder owns protected rights in a corresponding name.\r\nc.\tCommonly known by the domain name.\r\nd.\tComplainant’s failure to meet standard of proof.\r\ne.\tOther:\r\nThe respondent is a licensed and trademarked company in Florida, United States. \r\nADDITIONAL EXPLANATIONS:\r\nIII.\tThe domain name(s) has not been registered and used in bad faith\r\nCategories of issues involved: \r\ne.\tComplainant’s failure to meet standard of proof.\r\nf.\tOther:\r\nThe complainant is a coal and iron ore mining company that manufactures steel. The respondent is a high volume sales broker of prefabricated buildings. Clearly these are not the same industries. \r\nADDITIONAL EXPLANATIONS:\r\nPlease explain your arguments in detail below.\r\n- Respondent is a licensed and trademarked company in Florida, United States.\r\n- Domain name is identical to the respondent's trademarked company name.\r\n- Complainant and Respondent are not in the same industries.\r\n",
    "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the 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 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 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": [
        "The Hon. Neil Brown, QC"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2013-02-11 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": " The Complainant has submitted evidence  which the Panel accepts of numerous trademark registrations for ARCELORMITTAL, including registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (Reg. No. 3643543, registered  on June 23, 2009), and the World Intellectual Property Organisation (Reg. No. 947686,  registered August 3, 2008) . The Respondent does not mount any case against the Complainant having those rights and, indeed, refers in the Response to “the protected mark”. The Panel notes that it is now well established that registered trademarks of the sort established by the Complainant satisfy the requirements of the Policy. The Panel therefore concludes that the Complainant has adequately demonstrated its rights in the ARCELORMITTAL mark pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ARCELORMITTALBUILDINGS.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    }
}