The Complainant is a major steel producing company, active worldwide, and the market leader in steel for use in automotive, construction, household appliances and packaging.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Complainant is the owner of the Complainant’s Trademark and of various domain names, such as the domain name <arcelormittal.com> (since 27 January 2006).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on 5 October 2022. The landing page of the disputed domain name automatically forwards to the domain <steelemployees.com>. The website available at <steelemployees.com> displays a message “THIS WEBSITE IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH NOR ENDORSED BY ARCELOR MITTAL” and mentions statements and questions about the Complainant.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
COMPLAINANT’S CONTENTIONS:<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark (i.e., the disputed domain name includes the Complainant’s Trademark in its entirety, combined with the generic term “employees”).<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not related to the Complainant in any way. No license or authorization has been granted to the Respondent to use the Complainant’s Trademark, or register the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name resolves to the domain <steelemployees.com>. The website available via this domain name displays content criticizing certain policies to which the Complainant complies.<\/p>\n
The Complainant argues that free speech protection does not extend to the creation of rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name itself. The Complainant emphasizes that the Respondent has no right to impersonate the Complainant by incorporating the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name without the inclusion of other indicia (in the domain name) to make it clear that the domain name is unconnected to the Complainant.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered numerous other domain names comprising third-party trademarks (amounting to a pattern of conduct). It appears that numerous other domain names comprising registered trademarks and the term “employees” have been registered between June and August 2022, and resolve to the Respondent’s parking page at <clearertechnology.com>.<\/p>\n
The Complainant emphasizes that the Respondent also registered the domain name <arcelormittalemployees.com>, which also comprises the Complainant’s Trademark (the Panel notes that this domain name has, in the meantime, been transferred to the Complainant; following CAC domain name decision CAC-UDRP-104815 <arcelormittalemployees.com> of 26 August 2022).<\/p>\n
The Complainant argues that the Respondent hides its identity behind a privacy proxy service and does not identify itself via the WHOIS information nor via the content on the landing page.<\/p>\n
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is being used to divert consumers or tarnish the Complainant’s Trademark.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. <\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
The Complainant’ contends that the Complainant’s Trademark is widely known. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's Trademark, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's Trademark.<\/p>\n
The Respondent uses the disputed domain name for a website that criticises the Complainant and\/or its policies. However, the website displays no information identifying the owner as to avoid confusion with the Complainant. The website to which the disputed domain name redirects is identified only by the domain name itself <steelemployees.com>.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has created “template websites” in order to target various trademarks owners.<\/p>\n
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith to create confusion with the Complainant and the Complainant’s Trademark. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent attempts to pass off as the Complainant in order to disrupt the Complainant’s business.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:<\/p>\n
<\/strong><\/p>\n The Respondent contends that the disputed domain name resolves to the domain <steelemployees.com>. The website available via this domain lists: “THIS WEBSITE IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH NOR ENDORSED BY ARCELOR MITTAL”. This website thus disclaims any association with or endorsement by the Complainant. Furthermore, the Respondent claims that this website does not look like the Complainant’s own website (i.e., the website available via the Complainant’s domain <AreclorMittal.com>).<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n <\/p>\n The Respondent contends that its landing page (i.e., the website available via <steelemployees.com>) provides information to the Complainant’s shareholders and employees, criticizing the Complainant. The Respondent asserts that it is evident to a viewer that his website is not sponsored by the Complainant. The Respondent concludes that the disputed domain name is not confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Respondent claims that he uses and registered the disputed domain name for legitimate purposes, i.e., for critiquing corporate social activism by the Complainant, and not as a pretext for commercial gain.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n The Respondent asserts that he intends to use the disputed domain name for the purpose of educating shareholders, employees, and the general public of the Complainant’s policies, particularly regarding “Environmental, Social and Governance issues” (“ESG”). The educational information is followed by a series of questions and an option to “contact us” if the user would like follow-up contact regarding their personal experiences and their rights.<\/p>\n The Respondent invokes the domain name decision regarding the domain name <leidosemployees.com> (Forum decision No. FA2207002005102 <leidosemployees.com> of 8 September 2022 (Leidos, Inc. v. Gabriel Joseph \/ Clearer Technology)), where he was involved as a respondent and where the Panelist decided to deny the request for transfer of the domain name.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Respondent asserts that he intends to use the disputed domain name to educate shareholders, employees and the public of the Complainants’ policies and to offer information regarding their rights. The Respondent argues that he attempts to draw attention to the Complainant’s social activism on controversial topics.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Respondent further argues that he does not intend to attract users with the Complainant’s Trademark, but merely uses the Complainant’s Trademark to identify the subject of the criticism and commentary in which his website provides.<\/p>\n The Respondent denies that he intends to impersonate the Complainant or create the impression of being connected with the Complainant. The Respondent argues that his use of a forwarding site further distances the page from the Complainant’s Trademark.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Further, the Respondent claims that he does not financially benefit from web traffic to the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n According to the Complainant, none of the other websites of the Respondent are commercial in nature, and none of these websites are offered for sale. The Respondent asserts that each of these domain names are for companies with known “ESG” policies which have garnered the attention of investors' publications. The Respondent argues that, while this shows a pattern, it is a pattern of exercising free speech to criticize the “ESG” activism of the companies and is supported by references.<\/p>\n The Respondent emphasizes that there is no evidence that he registered the disputed domain name for the purpose of selling or transferring it to the Complainant. The Respondent confirms that he has no such intention. The Respondent refers to Forum decision No. FA2207002005102 <leidosemployees.com> of 8 September 2022 (Leidos, Inc. v. Gabriel Joseph \/ Clearer Technology), where he was involved as a respondent and where the Panelist denied the request for transfer of the domain name.<\/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": null,
"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": [
"Bart Van Besien"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2022-12-08 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant submitted evidence that it is the owner of the international trademark “ArcelorMittal” (wordmark), no. 947686, registered on 3 August 2007 in classes 6, 7, 9, 12, 19, 21, 39, 40, 41 and 42, valid in various countries (hereinafter the “Complainant’s Trademark”).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Complainant also submitted evidence that it is has registered the domain name <arcelormittal.com> on 27 January 2006.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"arcelormittalshareholders.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n
\n
\n