According to the information provided by the registrar the disputed domain name <arcelormittal-reports.com> was registered on 29 March 2012.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name redirects to a parking page, in addition MX records have been set up.<\/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:
According to the evidence submitted by Complainant, Complainant is the largest steel producing company in the world. Complainant also owns a number of domain names, including the same distinctive words ARCELORMITTAL, of which the domain name <arcelormittal.com> registered on 27 January 2006.
According to Complainant the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark. Complainant asserts that the addition of the term “repsorts” 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 Complainant’s trademark. Thus, there is a likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name. Respondent is not related in any way with Complainant. Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with Respondent. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to Respondent to make any use of Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page. Complainant contends that Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name. It proves a lack of legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name except in order to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant and its trademark.<\/p>\n
According to Complainant the disputed domain name is registered and is being used in bad faith. Given the distinctiveness of Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of Complainant's trademark. Furthermore, the disputed domain name redirects to a parking page. Complainant argues that 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 disputed domain name by Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of Complainant’s rights under trademark law. As prior 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. Finally, the disputed domain name has been set up with MX records which suggests that it may be actively used for e-mail purposes. This is also indicative of bad faith registration and use because any e-mail emanating from the disputed domain name could not be used for any good faith purpose.<\/p>\n
RESPONDENT:
NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED. <\/p>",
"rights": "
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 Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "
Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown 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": "
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": [ "Dinant T.L. Oosterbaan" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-11-14 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
Complainant is the owner of the international trademark nr. 947686 ARCELORMITTAL registered on 3 August 2007.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "arcelormittal-reports.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }