{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104428", "time_of_filling": "2022-03-22 09:15:33", "domain_names": [ "arcelromiittal.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "ARCELORMITTAL (SA)" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "michael scout" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that it 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. It has an international reputation and in its niche it is well-known as attested to by earlier UDRP Panels entering awards transferring infringing domain names to its account. As ARCELORMITTAL® is exclusively associated with Complainant, and as Respondent has appropriated it for an unauthorized purpose, it lacks rights or legitimately interests in the disputed domain name and its registration is abusive and in violation of the UDRP. \r\n\r\nComplainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its Complainant's trademark ARCELORMITTAL® and its domain name as it includes the Complainant's trademark in its entirety, albeit with typographical errors. The obvious misspelling of the Complainant's trademark ARCELORMITTAL®, i.e. the reversal of the letters \"O\" and \"R\" and the addition of a second letter \"i\" 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 slight spelling variations do not prevent a domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. See WIPO Case No. D2020-3457, ArcelorMittal (Societe Anonyme) v. Name Redacted (\"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 further contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and taking into account the totality of evidence presented demonstrates that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. ", "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": "The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions and did not submit any arguments or evidence in its defence. In such event, UDRP Rule 14 provides (a) that the \"Panel shall proceed to a decision on the complaint\" and (b) that \"the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate.\" In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at section 4.3. In such event, UDRP Rule 14 provides (a) that the \"Panel shall proceed to a decision on the complaint\" and (b) that \"the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate.\" In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at Para. 4.3: \"Further to paragraph 14(b) of the UDRP Rules however, panels have been prepared to draw certain inferences in light of the particular facts and circumstances of the case e.g., where a particular conclusion is prima facie obvious, where an explanation by the respondent is called for but is not forthcoming, or where no other plausible conclusion is apparent.\"", "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": [ "Gerald M. Levine, Ph.D, Esq." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-04-16 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of the international trademark n° 947686 ARCELORMITTAL® registered on August 3, 2007.", "decision_domains": { "ARCELROMIITTAL.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }