{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-100848", "time_of_filling": "2014-08-22 10:27:02", "domain_names": [ "arcelormittalvendas.com", "arcelormittaldireto.com" ], "case_administrator": "Kateřina Navrátilová", "complainant": [ "ArcelorMittal S.A." ], "complainant_representative": "Nameshield (Anne Morin)", "respondent": [ "HENDRIK VESBURG" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The following background is drawn from material submitted in the Complaint.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is a company specializing in steel throughout the world, and notably in Brazil. In fact, it 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 operations in more than 60 countries. It holds sizeable supplies of raw materials and operates extensive distribution networks.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the owner of several trademarks for ARCELORMITTAL. The Complainant has adduced evidence of those trademarks including the International trademark for ARCELORMITTAL, registered through the World Intellectual Property Organisation, registration number 947686 and registered on August 3, 2007 and also numerous Brazilian trademarks for ARCELORMITTAL (collectively \"the ARCELORMITAL trademark\"). The Panel accepts this evidence as establishing the Complainant's trademark rights in ARCELORMITTAL. The Complainant also owns a number of domain names, including the same distinctive wording.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names and were registered respectively on July 25, 2014 with the Registrar NETWORK SOLUTIONS and June 25, 2014 with the Registrar UNIVERSO ONLINE S\/A (UOL).\r\n\r\nThe Registration Agreements for the disputed domain names are in English for and in Portuguese for . Given the fact that at least one of both Registration Agreements is in English, the Complainant contends that the Respondent understands the English language. Thus, the Complainant requests, for the better understanding by both parties, that the Complaint should be filed in English.\r\n\r\nFurthermore, the Registrant contact details are not strictly identical for both domain names. However, given the fact that the differences are insignificant (an \"S\" replaced by a \"R\" in VESBURG, a \"9\" replaced by a \"4\" in the number of the street, and the phone number), together with the fact that the email addresses are identical for both domain names (pk3k@live.com), the Complainant maintains that the Registrant identified by both names and contact information are the same person.\r\n", "other_legal_proceedings": "None of which the Panel is aware. ", "no_response_filed": "PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:\r\n\r\nCOMPLAINANT:\r\n\r\n 1. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the ARCELORMITTAL trademark as they each contain the trademark, together with in each case a generic expression, in the case of the domain name the word \"vendas\" which in the English language means \"sales\" and in the case of domain name the word \"direto\" which in the English language means \"direct.\" The addition of those words is not sufficient to avoid the conclusion that the respective domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark. The reason why that is so is because the additional words describe activities of the Complainant and suggest that the domain names are related to the Complainant.\r\n\r\n 2. Moreover, the Respondent must have known of the Complainant's trademark ARCELORMITTAL because it appears on the website in relation with the disputed domain name . The website to which that domain name resolves includes a portion of the Complainant's own website, including the Complainant's logo.\r\n\r\n 3. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the domain names. In that regard, it is now well established that the onus is on the Complainant to establish a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and then the onus shifts to the Respondent to prove that it does have such rights or legitimate interests.\r\n\r\n4. In the present case, the Complainant makes out its prima facie case by showing that the Respondent is not affiliated with it nor authorized by it in any way and nor is the Respondent related in any way to the Complainant's business.\r\n Moreover, the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with, the Respondent.\r\n\r\n 5. The Respondent is also not commonly known by either of the disputed domain names The information regarding the Respondent, provided by the Whois of the disputed domain names and , is \"Hendrik Vesburg\" , not the disputed domain names or either of them.\r\n\r\n 6. Moreover, the website in relation with the disputed domain name has been inactive since its registration. However, it is used for email services, notably through the email address \"vendas@arcelormittaldireto.com\"), as indicated on the bottom of the website in relation with the domain name . The website in relation with the disputed domain name is active and provides information in relation with the Complainant and its trademark ARCELORMITTAL. As indicated on the website and in the disputed domain name itself, the Respondent offers for sale many products associated with the Complainant's activity. Furthermore, the Respondent reproduces the Complainant's figurative trademark on the front page of its website and also reproduces pictures and movies which belong to the Complainant.\r\n\r\n 7. The domain name(s) has been registered and is being used in bad faith.\r\n \r\n 8. The disputed domain names and are confusingly similar to its trademarks and branded goods provided under the ARCELORMITTAL trademark. Indeed, the domain names contain the Complainant's trademark in its entirety.\r\n\r\n 9. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's marks and uses it for the purpose of misleading and diverting Internet traffic. Indeed, the Respondent must be necessarily aware of the Complainant's trademark ARCELORMITTAL because it appears on the website in relation to the disputed domain name . Thus, it is inconceivable that the choice of the Respondent’s domain name was made independently of knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks.\r\n\r\n 10. Furthermore, the website in relation with the disputed domain name is and has been inactive since its registration. However, it is used for email services (notably through the email address \"vendas@arcelormittaldireto.com\"), as indicated on the bottom of the website in relation with the domain name .\r\n\r\n 11. The website in relation with the disputed domain name is active and provides information in relation to the Complainant and its trademark ARCELORMITTAL. As indicated on the website and in the disputed domain name itself, the Respondent offers for sale many products associated with the Complainant's activity.\r\n\r\n 12. Furthermore, the Respondent reproduces the Complainant's figurative trademark on the front page of its website. It also reproduces pictures and movies which belong to the Complainant.\r\n\r\n 13. Thus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain names in order:\r\n\r\n 1\/ To deprive the Complainant of its intellectual property rights on the trademark ARCELORMITTAL, notably in Brazil and therefore to block the registration of the disputed domain names by the Complainant;\r\n\r\n 2\/ To send fraudulent emails (or to answer to emails in a fraudulent way) to the Complainant's potential consumers through the email address vendas@arcelormittaldireto.com;\r\n\r\n 3\/ To attract Internet users in order to generate profits by attempting to sell them various products, pretending that these products are being sold by the Complainant.\r\n \r\n\r\nRESPONDENT: The Respondent did not file a Response in this matter.", "rights": "The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Domain Name 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 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 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": [ "The Hon. Neil Brown, QC" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2014-09-22 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "The Complainant has submitted evidence which the Panel accepts of several trademark registrations for ARCELORMITTAL, including an international registration with the World Intellectual Property Organisation (Reg. No. 947686, registered August 3, 2008). The Respondent has not filed a Response and hence has not mounted any case against the Complainant having those rights. The Panel notes that it is now well established that registered trademarks of the sort established by the Complainant satisfy the requirements of the Policy. The Panel therefore concludes that the Complainant has adequately demonstrated its rights in the ARCELORMITTAL mark pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. ", "decision_domains": { "ARCELORMITTALVENDAS.COM": "TRANSFERRED", "ARCELORMITTALDIRETO.COM": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }