{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104341",
    "time_of_filling": "2022-02-10 09:27:25",
    "domain_names": [
        "arcellomittal.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "ARCELORMITTAL (SA)"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "Jose Carballo"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant principally makes the following assertions:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is an international operating steel company based in Luxemburg, Luxembourg. The Complainant is active in 60 countries and has about 168.000 employees (in 2020).\r\n\r\nThe Respondent is an U.S. citizen from Florida, using a hidden domain holder name, who is represented by his Registry which is based in the United States. On February 3, 2022 the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. He directed the disputed domain name to a parking page offering commercial purposes.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant, represented by the company Nameshield, filed the Complaint against the Respondent claiming that the Respondent registered the confusingly similar disputed domain name without rights or legitimate interest and in bad faith, eg. typosquatting as eg. WIPO Case No. D2020-3457. Therefore, the registration should be declared abusive and the disputed domain name transferred to the Complainant.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent didn’t react to the Complainant‘s contentions. ",
    "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\nComplainants' Contentions:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant principally makes the following assertions.\r\n\r\nThis is a clear case of \"typosquatting“, i.e. the disputed domain name contains an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark. Previous panels have found that the slight spelling variations does not prevent a disputed domain name from being confusing similar to the Complainant’s trademark. See previous 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\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\nThough Complainant reminded to the WIPO Overview 3.0 §1.11.1, “the applicable Top Level Domain (“TDL”) in a domain name (e.g., “.com”, “.club”, “.nyc”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusion similarity test”.\r\n\r\nHe concluded that the disputed domain name <arcellomittal.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL®.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant offered more Jurisdiction, for instance 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\nPlease see 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\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\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.”).\r\n\r\nForum 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).\").",
    "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": [
        "Dr. jur. Harald von Herget"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-03-17 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant registered Arcelormittal trademarks, eg. IR No. n° 947686 ARCELORMITTAL, registered on August 3, 2007 which is still valid, before the Respondent registered the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also provided evidence that it owns a domain name containing the name <arcelormittal.com> registered since January 27, 2006, registered well before the Respondent registered the disputed domain name.  ",
    "decision_domains": {
        "ARCELLOMITTAL.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}