The Complainant has chosen, as a Mutual Jurisdiction, that one of the Registrar.<\/p>\n
FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/span><\/p>\n <\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant is the result of a merger in 2006 between Arcelor and the Mittal Steel resulting in the world’s largest steel producer. ARCELORMITTAL is therefore the name used for this global operation on the steel world market. It is a company specialized in steel producing and it is the largest player in this sector worldwide being the leader of this crucial market.<\/span><\/p>\n Furthermore, the Complainant also claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark ARCELORMITTAL given that the domain name comprises of the said trademark in its entirety. The addition of the generic word ASSOCIATIONS is not sufficient to exclude confusing similarity in fact it does not change or reduce the overall impression of the high similarity of the signs in comparison. It is well established that „a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for the purpose of the UDRP“ ( Wipo Case No.D2003-0888 Dr.Ing.H.C.F.Porsche AG vs Visilly Terkin).<\/p>\n Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademark ARCELORMITTAL in the following cases:<\/span><\/p>\n - CAC Case No. 101908, ARCELORMITTAL v. China Capital (\"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 (February 7, 2018) and is widely well-known.\");<\/span><\/p>\n - CAC Case No. 101667, ARCELORMITTAL v. Robert Rudd (\"The Panel is convinced that the Trademark is highly distinctive and well-established.\").<\/span><\/p>\n Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and its reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered and used the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark (WIPO Case No. D2004-0673, Ferrari S.p.A v. American Entertainment, Group Inc).<\/span><\/p>\n The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name only in order to create likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark. The Respondent has no legitimate interests on the domain name de quo and it is not related in any way with the ligitimate trademark owner. He is neither authorised nor was given any licence.<\/span><\/p>\n The Respondent did no tuse the disputed doman name since its creation and has no plans to use it, therefore thwe Complainant contends that the Respondent has no legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name arcelormittal-associations.com.<\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant underlines that past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademark ARCELORMITTAL in the following cases:<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Complainant contends that Respondent did not use its domain name until its creation. In fact the domain name resolves to an error page.<\/span><\/p>\n As prior WIPO UDRP panels (WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows and WIPO Case No. D2000-0400, CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Dennis Toeppen,) 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. <\/span><\/p>\n It is in bad faith given the notoriety of the Complianant’s terademark and being the domain name inactive since its registration . Furthermore the Complainant contends that MX servers are configuered which suggests that the disputed domain name mey be actively used for email purposes. This is another proof of bad faith ( Cac Case No.102827 JDCCAUX Sa Vs. Handi Hariyono.<\/span><\/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´s contentions are summarised above.<\/p>\n NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED<\/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": [
"Massimo Cimoli"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2023-04-24 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of international trade mark no 947686 ARCELORMITTAL registered on August 3, 2007 in Classes 6, 7, 9, 12, 19, 21, 39, 40, 41 and 42 with priority on June 18, 2005.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"arcelormittal-associations.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}