ArcelorMittal (hereinafter referred to as “the Complainant”) is a company specializing in steel production in the world (see their website at: www.arcelormittal.com).<\/p>\n
The Complainant 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 59 million tons of crude steel made in 2022. It holds sizeable captive supplies of raw materials and operates extensive distribution networks (print-screen of the Complainant’s webpage).<\/p>\n
The Complainant is the owner of the international trademark No. 947686 ARCELORMITTAL registered on August 3, 2007.<\/p>\n
The Complainant also owns an important domain names portfolio, such as the domain name <arcelormittal.com> registered since January 27, 2006 (extract from the Who is database).<\/p>\n
According to the Registrar, the Respondent is ‘Mamu Barbara’. The Respondent’s provided address is at New Port, the USA.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <arcelornlttal.com> (hereinafter “disputed domain name”) was registered on July 31, 2023 (extract from the Whois database) and resolves to a parking page (print-screen of the webpage under <arcelornlttal.com>). Besides, MX servers are configured (extract from MX lookup tool service).<\/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:<\/p>\n
A. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark <\/u><\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domains include the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety.<\/p>\n
The Complainant asserts that the obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark (i.e.<\/em> the substitution of the letter “I” by the letter “L”) is characteristic of a typosquatting <\/em>practice intended to create confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. Previous panels have found that the slight spelling variations does not prevent a domain name from being confusing similar to the Complainant’s trademark [WIPO Case No. D2020-3457, ArcelorMittal (Société Anonyme) v. Name Redacted <arcelormltal.com> (“As the disputed domain name differs from the Complainant’s trademark by just two letters, it must be considered a prototypical example of typosquatting – which intentionally takes advantage of Internet users that inadvertently type an incorrect address (often a misspelling of the complainant’s trademark) when seeking to access the trademark owner’s website. WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 1.9 states that “[a] domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element.”)].<\/p>\n Furthermore, 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. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.<\/p>\n B. The Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name <\/u><\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name. Past panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the Whois information was not similar to the disputed domain name. Thus, the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name [FORUM Case No. FA 1781783, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group <bobsfromsketchers.com> (“Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group.” The Panel therefore finds under Policy ¶ 4(c) (ii) that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c) (ii).”)].<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name <arcelornlttal.com> and he is not related in any way with the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.<\/p>\n The Complainant adds that 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 by the Complainant.<\/p>\n Moreover, the Complainant also claims that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the trademark. Typosquatting is the practice of registering a domain name in an attempt to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors and can evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name [FORUM Case No. 1597465, The Hackett Group, Inc. v. Brian Herns \/ The Hackett Group (“The Panel agrees that typosquatting is occurring, and finds this is additional evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”)].<\/p>\n Finally, the Complainant points out that the disputed domain name points to a parking page. The Complainant contends that the Respondent did not use the disputed domain name, and it confirms that the Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name [FORUM Case No. FA 1773444, Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. Joannet Macket \/ JM Consultants (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s lack of content at the disputed domain shows the lack of a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).”)].<\/p>\n Thus, in accordance with the foregoing, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name <arcelornlttal.com>.<\/p>\n C. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith<\/u><\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <arcelornlttal.com> is confusingly similar to its distinctive trademark.<\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that the Complainant’s trademark is widely known. Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademark in the following cases:<\/p>\n The Complainant assumes, 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 trademark [WIPO Case No. DCO2018-0005, ArcelorMittal SA v. Tina Campbell (“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.”)].<\/p>\n Moreover, the Complainant states the misspelling of the trademark was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Previous UDRP Panels have seen such actions as evidence of bad faith [FORUM Case No. FA 877979, Microsoft Corporation v. Domain Registration Philippines (\"In addition, Respondent’s misspelling of Complainant’s MICROSOFT mark in the <microssoft.com> domain name indicates that Respondent is typosquatting, which is a further indication of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).\")].<\/p>\n Furthermore, the disputed domain name points to a parking page. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law.<\/p>\n As prior WIPO UDRP panels 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.<\/p>\n For instance:<\/p>\n Finally, the disputed domain name has been set up with MX records which suggests that it may be actively used for e-mail purposes [CAC Case No. 102827, JCDECAUX SA v. Handi Hariyono (“There is no present use of the disputed domain name but there are several active MX records connected to the disputed domain name. It is concluded that it is inconceivable that the Respondent will be able to make any good faith use of the disputed domain name as part of an e-mail address.”)].<\/p>\n On those facts, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name <arcelornlttal.com> and is using it in bad faith.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n No administratively Complaint 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 UDRP).<\/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 UDRP).<\/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 UDRP).<\/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": [
"Radim Charvát"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2023-09-07 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of the international trademark registration:<\/p>\n The Complainant proved its ownership of listed trademark registration by the submitted extract from the Register.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"arcelornlttal.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n
\n
\n