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. It holds sizeable captive supplies of raw materials and operates extensive distribution networks. In addition to the asserted trademark, the Complainant also owns the domain name <arcelormittal.com>, registered since 27 January 2006.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on 19 September 2023 and resolves to an inactive page. MX servers were configured for the disputed domain name. The Registrar confirmed that the Respondent is the current registrant of the disputed domain name and that the language of the registration agreement is English. The Respondent has not filed a Response.<\/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": "
NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/p>\n
The Complainant made the following contentions:<\/p>\n
First, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark ARCELORMITTAL and its domain name associated. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name identically reproduces the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n
Moreover, the addition of the term “STEEL” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. It does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark. On the contrary, this term refers to the activity of the Complainant and, therefore, reinforces the similarities with its trademark.<\/p>\n
Secondly, the Complainant points to the established case law on a prima facie case and the reversal of the burden of proof to the Respondent. 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.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and he is not related in any way with the Complainant.<\/p>\n
The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with, the Respondent. 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. Furthermore, the disputed domain name points to an inactive page.<\/p>\n
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. Turning to the bad faith argument, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its distinctive and widely known trademark ARCELORMITTAL.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name points to an inactive 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. As prior 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
Finally, the disputed domain name has been set up with MX records, which suggests that it may be actively used for email purposes. This is also indicative of bad faith registration and use because any email emanating from the disputed domain name could not be used for any good faith purpose. The Complainant thus contends that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name and is using it in bad faith.<\/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": [ "Vojtěch Chloupek" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-11-03 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant submitted evidence that it is the registered owner of the international trademark registration no. 947686 for the \"ArcelorMittal\" word, registered on 3 August 2007 in classes 6, 7, 9, 12, 19, 21, 39, 40, 41 and 42, designating numerous countries around the world.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "arcelormittal-steel.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }