{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-104517", "time_of_filling": "2022-04-22 08:56:41", "domain_names": [ "arcelormittalro.com", "globalarcelormittal.com" ], "case_administrator": "Denisa Bilík (CAC) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "ARCELORMITTAL S.A." ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Fastloc Inc" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The 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. It holds sizeable captive supplies of raw materials and operates extensive distribution networks (Annex 1 to the Complaint).\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of the international trademark No. 947686 “ArcelorMittal” registered on August 3, 2007.\r\nThe Complainant owns an important domain names portfolio, including the same distinctive wording “ArcelorMittal”, such as the domain name registered since January 27, 2006 (Annex 3 to the Complaint).\r\nThe disputed domain names and (hereinafter “disputed domain names”) were registered on April 13, 2022 (Annex 4 to the Complaint) and resolve to parking pages (Annex 5 to the Complaint).\r\nAccording to the Registrar verification, the Respondent is ‘Fastloc Inc’. The Respondent’s provided address as being in Romania.", "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 names.", "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\nA. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.\r\nThe Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain names include the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety.\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the addition of the generic term “GLOBAL” or letters “RO” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark and branded goods. It does not change the overall impression of the designations as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant, its trademark and the domain name associated. It is well established that “a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP” (See WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin).\r\nThe Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designations as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated. See WIPO Case No. D2006-0451, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A. (“It is also well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as “.com”, “.org” or “.net” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar.”).\r\nB. The Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.\r\nThe Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain names. Past Panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the Whois information was not similar to the disputed domain name. Thus, the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain names (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 (“Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group.” The Panel therefore finds under Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.”) or Forum Case No. FA 699652, The Braun Corporation v. Wayne Loney).\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names and it 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.\r\nNeither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark or apply for registration of the disputed domain names by the Complainant.\r\nMoreover, the disputed domain names resolve to parking page. The Complainant contends that Respondent did not use the disputed domain names, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain names.\r\nC. The Complainant contends that the domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.\r\nThe Complainant’s trademark is widely known. Past Panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademark “ArcelorMittal” in the following cases:\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- CAC Case No. 101667, ArcelorMittal v. Robert Rudd (\"The Panel is convinced that the Trademark is highly distinctive and well-established.\")\r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. See WIPO 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\nBesides, the disputed domain names are not used. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain names, and it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain names by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law. As prior Panels have held, the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use (for instance: WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows; or WIPO Case No. D2000-0400, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen).\r\n\r\nRESPONDENT:\r\nNO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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 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.", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "JUDr. Radim Charvát, Ph.D., LL.M." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-05-23 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant is the owner of the international trademark registration:\r\n- registered international word mark “ArcelorMittal” No. 947686 for goods and services in Classes 6, 7, 9, 12, 19, 21, 39, 40, 41, 42, with the registration date on August 3, 2007.\r\nThe Complainant proved its ownership of the trademark registration in question by the submitted extract from the Register.", "decision_domains": { "ARCELORMITTALRO.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "GLOBALARCELORMITTAL.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }