{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-105238", "time_of_filling": "2023-02-28 10:28:34", "domain_names": [ "arcelormittal-europe.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "ARCELORMITTAL (SA)" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Anonymous Anonymous" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant ARCELORMITTAL S.A. is specialized in producing steel worldwide and is the market leader company in steel for use in automotive, construction, household appliances and packaging with 69.1 million tonnes crude steel made in 2021.<\/p>\n

The Complainant is the owner of the international trademark n° 947686 “ARCELORMITTAL” and domain name <arcelormittal.com>.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <arcelormittal-europe.com> was registered on February 22, 2023 and resolves to an inactive page.<\/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": "

COMPLAINANT:<\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark “ARCELORMITTAL”. It only has an addition of the geographic term “EUROPE”, which does not alter the overall impression and does not prevent likelihood of confusion, because the disputed domain name fully includes the Complainant’s trademark. <\/span><\/p>\n

    The Complainant also states that the top level “.com” does not change the overall impression and does not prevent likelihood of confusion.<\/span><\/p>\n

    Consequently, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.<\/span><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      The Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name since the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name and not identified in the WHOIS database.<\/span><\/p>\n

      The Complainant also states that the Respondent is neither related to the Complainant in any way nor has any business with the Complainant. There is not any license nor authorization granted to the Respondent to use the Complainant’s trademark \"ARCELORMITTAL\", or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.<\/span><\/p>\n

      Since the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page, the Complainant states that the Respondent did not use the disputed domain name since its registration, and it confirms that the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. It shows lack of legitimate interests on the disputed domain name.<\/span><\/p>\n

        \n
      1. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS USED IN BAD FAITH<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        The Complainant indicates that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's distinctive trademark ARCELORMITTAL and the Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL is widely known. <\/p>\n

          \n
        • CAC Case No. 101908, ARCELORMITTAL v. China Capital<\/em> (\"The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark \"ArcelorMittal\", at least since 2007. The Complainant's trademark was registered prior to the registration of the disputed domain name in 2018 and is widely well-known.\")<\/span><\/li>\n
        • CAC Case No. 101667, ARCELORMITTAL v. Robert Rudd<\/em> (\"The Panel is convinced that the Trademark is highly distinctive and well-established.\").<\/span><\/li>\n
        • WIPO Case No. DCO2018-0005, ArcelorMittal SA v. Tina Campbell <\/em>(“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.”).<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

          The Complainant also states that, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and its reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.<\/span><\/p>\n

          Since the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page, the Complainant states that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and it is not possible to ascertain any reasonable actual or planned active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as passing off, infringement of consumer protection or trademark law. Besides, the Complainant also states that incorporating a well-known trademark into a domain name may be evidence of bad faith registration and use.<\/span><\/p>\n

          Lastly, the Complainant claims that MX servers are configured suggesting that the disputed domain name may be actively used for email purposes, which cannot be in good faith.<\/span><\/p>\n

          Accordingly, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/span><\/p>\n

           <\/span><\/p>\n

          RESPONDENT:<\/span><\/p>\n

          NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/span><\/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": [ "Mrs Selma Ünlü" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-04-07 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

          The Complainant has submitted evidence, which the Panel accepts, showing that it is the registered owner of the IR trademark “<\/span>ARCELORMITTAL” (registration n° <\/span>947686) dated August 3, 2007.<\/span><\/p>\n

          Moreover, the Complainant is also the owner of the domain name bearing the sign “<\/span>ARCELORMITTAL”, <<\/span>arcelormittal.com>, registered since January 27, 2006.<\/span><\/p>", "decision_domains": { "arcelormittal-europe.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }