{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106016", "time_of_filling": "2023-11-30 09:17:50", "domain_names": [ "arcelormlttai.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "ARCELORMITTAL" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "james bowel" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant alleges that it is the largest steel manufacturing company in the world and is the market leader in steel production for use in automotive, construction, household appliances and packaging with 59 million tons of crude steel produced in 2022.<\/p>\n

The Complainant is the owner of the “ArcelorMittal” trademark referred to above and owns the domain name <arcelormittal.com> registered since January 27, 2006.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name was registered on November 22, 2023 and resolves to a parking page with MX servers configured.<\/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 obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark (i.e. the substitution of the letters “I” and “L” by the letters “L” and “I”) is a typosquatting practice intended to create confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. A slight spelling variation does not prevent confusing similarity.<\/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<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the “Whois” database 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 as 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.<\/p>\n

The Complainant refers to previous UDRP decisions and claims that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of its 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.  <\/p>\n

The disputed domain name is inactive (resolves to a parking page) and, in the Complainant’s view, this 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<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant’s submissions on the bad faith element of the UDRP can be summarized as follows:<\/p>\n

    \n
  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.<\/li>\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.<\/li>\n
  3. The Complainant states the misspelling of the trademark “ARCELORMITTAL” was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Previous UDRP Panels have considered such actions as evidence of bad faith.<\/li>\n
  4. The Complainant relies on the “Telstra” decision (WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, “Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows”<\/em><\/strong>) 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 and the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website indicates bad faith.<\/li>\n
  5. The fact that MX servers are configured, in the Complainant’s opinion, suggests that, despite being inactive, the disputed domain name may be actively used for e-mail purposes.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\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.<\/span><\/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": "2023-12-23 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

    In this proceeding the Complainant relies on the following trademark registration:<\/p>\n

      \n
    • International trademark registration under the “Madrid” system “ArcelorMittal” (word) No. 947686, registration date is August 03, 2007, protected inter alia<\/em> in the US, Singapore, EU, Georgia, Japan, Switzerland, Kazakhstan, Mongolia and China.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      The Complainant also refers to various domain names owned by the Complainant that incorporate its “ArcelorMittal” trademark, including <arcelormittal.com>.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "arcelormlttai.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }