{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105080", "time_of_filling": "2022-12-23 11:21:41", "domain_names": [ "zenicaarcelormittal.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "ARCELORMITTAL (SA)" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Dzenan Abaz (oMedia doo)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant’s statements of fact can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

In addition to the trade mark mentioned in the section ‘Identification of Rights’, the Complainant also owns numerous domain names, including <arcelormittal.com>, which was registered on 27 January 2006.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings in respect of the domain name <zenicaarcelormittal.com> (‘the disputed domain name’).<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

The Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n

1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trade marks in which the Complainant has rights <\/p>\n

The Complainant avers that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark ARCELORMITTAL, in so far as the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trade mark in its entirety. The addition of the geographical term ‘Zenica’ is insufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark ARCELORMITTAL. On the contrary, the geographical term ‘Zenica’ worsens the likelihood of confusion as it directly refers to the Complainant’s subsidiary ArcelorMittal Zenica. Furthermore, the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) suffix (<.com>) is typically disregarded in the assessment of identity or confusingly similar under paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP Policy.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

II. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name <\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. 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 name on the Complainant’s behalf.<\/p>\n

The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

Lastly, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name resolves to a parked page comprising PPC commercial links, and that such use of the disputed domain name is neither bona fide nor legitimate non-commercial or fair use.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

III. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Registration<\/p>\n

The Complainant contends 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.<\/p>\n

The Complainant further contends that (i) the term ‘Zenica’ in the disputed domain name string cannot be coincidental to the extent that it directly refers to the Complainant’s subsidiary ArcelorMittal Zenica; and (ii) given the distinctiveness and reputation of the trade mark ARCELORMITTAL, it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without actual knowledge of the Complainant’s trade mark ARCELORMITTAL.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Use<\/p>\n

The Complainant avers that the Respondent has intentionally used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP Policy).<\/p>\n

The Complainant therefore concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP 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 UDRP 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 UDRP Policy).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "

Disputed domain name – standing<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Panel notes that, according to the Registrar’s verification response, the disputed domain name expired on 15 December 2022. Nonetheless, the Registrar has confirmed that the disputed domain name ‘[…] has been placed under a lock status as to prevent any transfers or changes to the registration information during the proceedings…’.<\/p>\n

The Panel is therefore 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": [ "Gustavo Moser" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-01-23 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant relies upon the following registered trade mark:<\/p>\n