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 with 69.1 million tonnes crude steel made in 2021. It holds sizeable captive supplies of raw materials and operates extensive distribution networks.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain names were registered on December 13 or 14, 2022 and resolve to pages without any substantial content, although MX servers are configured.<\/p>\n
<\/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 names.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
Complainant:<\/p>\n
A. The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark ARCELORMITTAL®. Indeed, the domain names include it in its entirety.<\/p>\n The addition of the generic term “Interviews”, “Recruit” or “Recruits” in one of the disputed domain names is not sufficient to escape the finding that that domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark ARCELORMITTAL®. It does not change the overall impression of a connection to the Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL®. 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”. (WIPO Case No. D2003-0888, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin).<\/p>\n Furthermore, the addition of the gTLD “.COM” does not change the overall impression of a connection 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. 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.”).<\/p>\n <\/p>\n B. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n The Respondent is not commonly known by 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. Forum Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group <bobsfromsketchers.com> (“Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group.” The Panel therefore finds under Policy 4(c)(ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy 4(c)(ii).”).<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names and he 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.<\/p>\n Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL®, or apply for registration of the disputed domain names by the Complainant.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the disputed domain names resolve to pages without any substantial content. The Complainant contends that Respondent did not make any use of the disputed domain names since registration, and this confirms that the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use them. It demonstrates a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. WIPO Case No. D2000-1164, Boeing Co. v. Bressi (“the Respondent has advanced no basis on which he could conclude that it has a right or legitimate interest in the domain names”).<\/p>\n Thus, in accordance with the foregoing, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain names.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n C. The disputed domain names <\/em>were <\/em>registered and are being used in bad faith<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL® is widely known. Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademark ARCELORMITTAL® in the following cases:<\/p>\n Thus, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. 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.”).<\/p>\n 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 disputed 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 WIPO UDRP 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. <\/p>\n Finally, MX servers are configured which suggests that the disputed domain names may be actively used for email purposes. CAC Case No. 102827, JCDECAUX SA v. Handi Hariyono (“There is no present use of the disputed domain name but there are several active MX records connected to the disputed domain name. It is concluded that it is inconceivable that the Respondent will be able to make any good faith use of the disputed domain name as part of an e-mail address.”).<\/p>\n On those facts, the Complainant contends that Respondent has registered the disputed domain names and is using them in bad faith.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/span>NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/p>",
"rights": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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 names (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 names have been registered and are 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": [
"Dawn Osborne"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2023-01-17 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of the international trademark n° 947686 ARCELORMITTAL® registered on August 3, 2007.<\/p>\n The Complainant also owns <arcelormittal.com> registered since January 27, 2006.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"interviews-arcelormittal.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"recruit-arcelormittal.com": "TRANSFERRED",
"recruits-arcelormittal.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n
\n
RESPONDENT<\/p>\n