FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS<\/p>\n
The Complainant is a steel manufacturing company. <\/p>\n
The Complainant alleges that it is the largest steel producing company in the world and is the market leader in steel production for use in automotive, construction, household appliances and packaging with 69.1 million tons crude steel made in 2021.<\/p>\n
The Complainant is the owner of the “ArcelorMittal” trademark referred to above and also owns the domain name <arcelormittal.com> registered since January 27, 2006.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name is registered on March 27, 2023 and is currently not used for any active website.<\/p>\n
The Complainant claims the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the “ArcelorMittal” trademark since it includes the trademark of the Complainant in its entirety.
The Complainant asserts that the addition of the term “COM” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the Complainant claims the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its “ArcelorMittal” trademark.<\/p>\n
THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/p>\n
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the “Whois” database as the disputed domain name.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name as he is not related in any way to the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.<\/p>\n
Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name is inactive and the Complainant contends that the Respondent did not use the disputed domain name since its creation, and it confirms that the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. <\/p>\n
Based on the above, the Complainant claims that the second element of the UDRP is evident and prima-facie requirement has been satisfied.<\/p>\n
THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND BEING USED IN BAD FAITH<\/p>\n
The Complainant’s submissions on the bad faith element of the UDRP can be summarized as follows:
1. The Complainant claims that its “ArcelorMittal” trademark is well-known and refers to previous decisions of UDRP panels that confirm well-known character of the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n
2. The Complainant alleges that given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.<\/p>\n
3. The Complainant relies on the “Telstra” decision (WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, “Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows”) and alleges that passive holding in the present case indicates bad faith of the Respondent since it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate.<\/p>\n
Therefore, the Complainant claims the disputed domain name was registered and being used in bad faith.<\/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": "
The Complainant's contentions are summarized in the Factual Background section 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": [ "Igor Motsnyi" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-05-13 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
In this proceeding the Complainant relies on the following trademark registration: The Complainant also refers to various domain names owned by the Complainant that incorporate its “ArcelorMittal” trademark, including <arcelormittal.com>. <\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"arcelormittal-com.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}
- The international trademark registration “ArcelorMittal” (word) No. 947686, registration date August 03, 2007 and effective inter alia<\/em><\/strong> in the US, Singapore, the European Union, Switzerland and China.<\/p>\n