The Complainant (ARCELORMITTAL S.A). is a company specialized in steel producing and it is the largest steel producing company in the world and market leader in steel for use in automotive, construction, household appliances and packaging with operations in more than 60 countries.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <arcelorrnitals.com> was registered on 23 August 2022 and is held by the Respondent.<\/p>\n
The domain name website (i.e. website available under internet address containing the disputed domain name) is currently not used and has no content available to public (i.e. the disputed domain name is not currently associated with any active website). Previously, the domain name website resolved to a parking page with automatically generated links to third party content.<\/p>\n
The Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant.<\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
CONFUSING SIMILARITY<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to “ARCELOR” and “MITTAL” word elements of the Complainant’s trademarks.<\/p>\n
The obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL (letters \"rm\" being replaced with \"rrn\") is characteristics of a typosquatting practice intended to create confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions in this regard. <\/p>\n
Thus, according to the Complainant the confusing similarity between Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain name is clearly established.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Complainant has not authorized, permitted or licensed the Respondent to use Complainant’s trademarks in any manner. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant whatsoever. On this record, Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the domain name website has been during its existence inactive, which implies that there was no Respondent’s intention to use the disputed domain name for legitimate purposes.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions in this regard.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
BAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Seniority of the Complainant's trademarks predates the disputed domain name registration and such trademarks are well known in relevant business circles. The Respondent can be considered to be aware of the Complainant's trademark when registering the disputed domain name due to well-known character thereof.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name (at the time of filing of the complaint) did not resolve to any active website, but to a parking page. In the light of the foregoing, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and used with the sole purpose of selling thereof to the Complainant.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
It is well-founded that registration of the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks which enjoys strong reputation, plus other facts, such as above-described non-use of the disputed domain name (inactive holding) and illicit typo squatting practice are sufficient to establish bad faith under the 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions contending that registering a domain name incorporating trademarks that enjoy high level of notoriety and well-known character and at the same time constitute prima facie registration in bad faith, despite a fact that such domain names are not genuinely used.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
The Respondent has not provided any response to the Complaint.<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Jiří Čermák" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2022-10-05 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant is, inter alia, a registered owner of the following trademark containing a word element \"ARCELORMITTAL”:<\/p>\n
ARCELORMITTAL (word), International (WIPO) Trademark, priority date 25 May 2007, registration date 3 August 2007, trademark no. 947686, registered for goods and services in classes 6, 7, 9, 12, 19, 21, 39, 40, 41, and 42.<\/p>\n
besides other trademarks consisting of the \" ARCELOR“ or „MITTAL \" denominations.<\/p>\n
(collectively referred to as \"Complainant's trademarks\").<\/p>\n
The Complainant has also registered a number of domain names under generic Top-Level Domains (\"gTLD\") and country-code Top-Level Domains (\"ccTLD\") containing the term “ARCELORMITTAL”.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "arcelorrnitals.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }