{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106007", "time_of_filling": "2023-11-28 09:58:09", "domain_names": [ "arceiormital.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "ARCELORMITTAL" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "July Don" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

FACTS PROVIDED BY THE COMPLAINANT:<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant is a company specialized in steel producing in the world and it is the market leader in steel for use in automotive, construction, household appliances and packaging with 69.1 million tons crude steel made in 2021. It holds sizeable captive supplies of raw materials and operates extensive distribution networks.<\/p>\n

The Complainant is the owner of the trademark ARCELORMITTAL® and the domain name <arcelormittal.com>.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <arceiormital.com> (hereinafter, the “Disputed Domain Name”) was registered on November 16, 2023 by July Don based in the United States and it resolves to an inactive website. Furthermore, MX servers are configured.<\/p>\n

According to Complainant’s non-contested allegations, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the Disputed Domain Name and he is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business.<\/p>\n

For the purpose of this case, 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.<\/p>\n

Respondent did not reply to the Complaint. <\/p>\n

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/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

First element: Similarity<\/p>\n

The Complainant confirms that the Disputed Domain Name <arceiormital.com<\/strong>> is confusingly similar to its trademark ARCELORMITTAL® and its domain name associated.<\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the misspelling of the Complainant´s trademark ARCELORMITTAL (i.e. the substitution of the letter “L” by the letter “I” and the suppression of the letter “T”) is characteristic of a typosquatting practice intended to create confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the Disputed Domain Name.<\/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 name associated.

<\/p>\n

Second element: Rights or legitimate interest<\/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. In addition, the Complainant argues that they do not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.<\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL® 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 ARCELORMITTAL®.<\/p>\n

Last but not least, the Complainant indicates that the Disputed Domain Name points to an inactive page. The Complainant contends that the Respondent did not use the Disputed Domain Na<\/span>me, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the Disputed Domain Name.

<\/p>\n

Third element: Bad faith<\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name <arceiormital.com<\/strong>> is confusingly similar to its distinctive trademark ARCELORMITTAL®.<\/p>\n

The Complainant indicates that the Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL® is widely known by showing UDRP decisions issued by different UDRP panelist where the well-known status of the trademark ARCELORMITTAL® for metal and steel production has been confirmed. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark and reputation, the Complainant confirms that it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark. Moreover, the Complainant states the misspelling of the trademark ARCELORMITTAL® was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n

The Complainant contends tha’ 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 Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as 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 Complainant indicated that the Respondent has set up the Disputed Domain Name with MX records which suggests that it may be actively used for e-mail purposes.

<\/p>\n

RESPONDENT <\/p>\n

Respondent did not reply to the Complaint.<\/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": [ "Victor Garcia Padilla" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-12-27 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the owner of the international trademark No. 947686 ARCELORMITTAL® registered on August 3, 2007 at classes 06, 07, 09, 12, 19, 21, 39, 40 41 & 42.<\/p>\n

In addition, the Complainant owns the domain name <arcelormittal.com> created on January 26, 2006.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "arceiormital.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }