{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104478", "time_of_filling": "2022-04-07 08:33:36", "domain_names": [ "arcelormittalonline.com", "arcelormittalservices.com" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "ARCELORMITTAL (SA)" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "bill chill" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:\r\n\r\nI. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights\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.\r\n\r\nIn addition to the trade mark mentioned above, the Complainant also owns numerous domain names, including , which was registered on 27 January 2006. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names and were both registered on 29 March 2022 (“the disputed domain names”). The websites to which the disputed domain names resolve are currently inactive, although the MX servers are configured.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant avers that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark ARCELORMITTAL, in so far as they incorporate the Complainant’s trade mark in its entirety. The addition of the generic terms “online” and “services” is insufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark ARCELORMITTAL. Moreover, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix (“.com”) is typically disregarded in the assessment of identity or confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.\r\n\r\n\r\nII. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names\r\n\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Respondent does not carry out any activity for, or has any business with, the Complainant. Neither licence nor authorisation has been given to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trade mark, or to apply for registration of the disputed domain names on the Complainant’s behalf.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant also asserts that the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain names. \r\n\r\nLastly, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain names resolve to error webpages, and that the Respondent do not use the disputed domain names. This confirms that the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain names.\r\n\r\n\r\nIII. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith \r\n\r\n\r\nRegistration\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the trade mark ARCELORMITTAL is well-known and distinctive, and that its notoriety has been acknowledged in prior UDRP decisions, namely: CAC Case No. 101908, ARCELORMITTAL v China Capital; and CAC Case No. 101667, ARCELORMITTAL v Robert Rudd.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further states that, given the distinctiveness and reputation of the trade mark ARCELORMITTAL, it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain names without actual knowledge of the Complainant’s trade mark ARCELORMITTAL. \r\n\r\nUse \r\n\r\nThe Complainant avers that whilst the disputed domain names are currently inactive, MX servers are configured nonetheless. In addition, the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain names, and it is not possible to conceive any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain names that would not be illegitimate, such as through passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trade mark law. \r\n\r\nFinally, the Complainant cites WIPO UDRP decisions to support its contention that the incorporation of a famous trade mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant therefore concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. ", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings in respect of the disputed domain names.", "no_response_filed": "No administratively compliant Response has been filed.\r\n", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade 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 names (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 names have been registered and are 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.\r\n", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Yana Zhou" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-05-03 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant relies upon the following registered trade mark:\r\n\r\n• International trade mark registration no. 947686, dated 3 August 2007, for the word mark ARCELORMITTAL, in classes 6, 7, 9, 12, 19, 21, 39, 40, 41 and 42 of the Nice Classification.\r\n\r\n(hereinafter, the Complainant’s trade mark; and the ARCELORMITTAL trade mark and the trade mark ARCELORMITTAL interchangeably).\r\n", "decision_domains": { "ARCELORMITTALONLINE.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "ARCELORMITTALSERVICES.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }