According to the information on the case file, the Registrar confirmed that the Respondent is the current registrant of the disputed domain names and that the language of the registration agreement is English.<\/p>\n
FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT:<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant is the largest steel producing company in the world and the market leader in steel for use in automotive, construction, household appliances and packaging. The Complainant produced 69.1 million tonnes of crude steel in 2021, and has approximately 158,000 employees.<\/p>\n Since around 2020, The Complainant has brought together under its XCarb® umbrella brand its reduced, low and zero-carbon products and steelmaking activities, as well as wider initiatives and green innovation projects. Alongside the XCarb® brand, the Complainant has launched three XCarb® initiatives: the XCarb® innovation fund, XCarb® green steel certificates and XCarb™ recycled and renewably produced for products made via the Electric Arc Furnace route using scrap.<\/p>\n On March 2, 2023, the Respondent Adam Ayres, an individual located in Canada, registered the disputed domain names <xcarb.org> and <xcarb.tech>.<\/p>\n The disputed domain names do not resolve to active content.<\/p>\n FACTS ASSERTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/strong><\/p>\n For ease of understanding and to distinguish from the Complainant, the Panel uses the third person masculine pronoun (“he” or “his”) to refer to the Respondent.<\/p>\n The Respondent operates a business in Canada called Grow the Good, Inc which is focussed on accelerating decarbonization technologies and has an online presence through the domain name <growthegoodcanada.com>.<\/p>\n The Respondent acquired the two disputed domain names to support a local Canadian and global decarbonization initiative, because he has “a background in renewable energy technologies and thought the xcarb name described my planned efforts well”.<\/p>\n The Respondent asserts that he did not intend to take advantage of or profit in any way from the Complainant’s brand. To explain his reason for acquiring the domain names the Respondent claims, “It was my intent to bring more attention to the good works of decarbonizing the planet, through my own established business(es).” The Respondent asserts that he has legitimate interests in using the disputed domain names through his related businesses in Canada. The Respondent firmly denies that he registered the disputed domain names in bad faith.<\/p>\n THE COMPLAINANT’S SUPPLEMENTAL FILINGS:<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant filed unsolicited supplemental filings subsequent to the Respondent’s Response.<\/p>\n The UDRP Rules only provide for the submission of the complaint by the complainant, and the response by the respondent. No provision is made for supplemental filings by either party, except in response to a deficiency notification or if requested by the panel. Thus the admissibility of any unsolicited supplemental filings is subject to the discretion of the panel, taking into account the panel’s obligation under UDRP Rule 10(b) to “ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case“. Section 4.6 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) states “Unsolicited supplemental filings are generally discouraged, unless specifically requested by the panel” and “panels have repeatedly affirmed that the party submitting or requesting to submit an unsolicited supplemental filing should clearly show its relevance to the case and why it was unable to provide the information contained therein in its complaint or response (e.g., owing to some “exceptional” circumstance)”.<\/p>\n The Panel agrees with the consensus view that unsolicited supplemental filings should be accepted only in exceptional circumstances. The Panel finds – for the most part – the Complainant’s supplemental filing contains information which must be rejected because there is no apparent or proposed reason why such information could not have been provided in the Complaint. Accordingly, the Panel does not admit the Complainant’s supplemental filing save for the Complainant’s claim that the Respondent is a competitor. The Complainant’s claim that the Respondent is a competitor shall be admitted because the Complainant could not have known that the Respondent would assert in his Response that he has “a background in renewable energy technologies“, and has a business “focused on accelerating decarbonization technologies“ when preparing its Complaint. Thus, regarding the Complainant’s supplemental filings, solely the issue of whether the Respondent is a competitor - as asserted by the Complainant - is taken into consideration by the Panel.<\/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": null,
"rights": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names 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).<\/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": [
"Claire Kowarsky"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2023-05-07 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of several trademarks consisting of the term “XCARB” including:<\/p>\n Territory<\/p>\n<\/td>\n Designations<\/p>\n<\/td>\n Trademark<\/p>\n<\/td>\n Registration No.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n Filing\/ Priority Date<\/p>\n<\/td>\n Registration Date<\/p>\n<\/td>\n Expiry Date<\/p>\n<\/td>\n Class(es)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n EU<\/p>\n<\/td>\n <\/p>\n<\/td>\n XCARB<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 018383608<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 27\/01\/2021<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 18\/06\/2021<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 27\/01\/2031<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 4,6,12,36,40,42,45<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n US<\/p>\n<\/td>\n <\/p>\n<\/td>\n XCARB<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 6886560<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 27\/01\/2021<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 01\/11\/2022<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 09\/04\/2031<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 4,6,12,36,40,42,45<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n WO<\/p>\n<\/td>\n BA-BR-CA-CN-GB-IN-JP-KZ-MX-RU-TR-UA-US<\/p>\n<\/td>\n <\/p>\n<\/td>\n 1610773<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 27\/01\/2021<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 09\/04\/2021<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 09\/04\/2031<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 4,6,12,36,40,42,45<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n <\/p>\n Further, the Complainant has registered several domain name variants including the “xcarb” denomination including <xcarb.net> and <xcarb.green> which were both registered on March 5, 2021.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"xcarb.org": "TRANSFERRED",
"xcarb.tech": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n\n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n