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 tonnes of crude steel having been made in 2022. It holds sizeable supplies of raw materials and operates extensive distribution networks.<\/p>\n
In addition to the Complainant’s ARCELORMITTAL registered trademark, the Complainant owns a domain name portfolio containing domain names such as <arcelormittal.com>, registered since January 27, 2006.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on December 11, 2023 and resolves to the Complainant’s official website. MX records are configured in the DNS to which the disputed domain name has been delegated.<\/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
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ARCELORMITTAL trademark, subject to an obvious misspelling inverting the letters “r” and “c” and substituting the letter “m” with the visually similar letters “rn”. This is characteristic of a typosquatting practice intended to create confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. Previous panels have found that slight spelling variations do not prevent a domain name from being confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n
The addition of the gTLD “.com” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark or prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its associated domain name.<\/p>\n
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name. Previous panels have held that a respondent is not commonly known by a domain name if the Whois information is not similar thereto.<\/p>\n
The Respondent is not related to the Complainant in any way. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for the Respondent and has no business with it. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s ARCELORMITTAL trademark, nor permission to apply for registration of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the Complainant’s trademark, namely it was registered in an attempt to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors, and this can evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name concerned.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name redirects to the Complainant’s official website. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not making a bona fide<\/em> offering of goods or services by means of the disputed domain name, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use thereof.<\/p>\n The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n The Complainant’s trademark is widely known and previous panels have confirmed its notoriety. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. The misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar thereto. Previous panels have seen this as evidence of bad faith.<\/p>\n The disputed domain name redirects to the Complainant’s official website, confirming the Respondent’s prior knowledge of the Complainant’s rights, which is a hallmark of bad faith. The disputed domain name has been registered by the Respondent in an effort to take advantage of the good reputation that the Complainant has built up in its trademark with the sole aim of creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks and domain name.<\/p>\n The disputed domain name has configured MX records which suggests that the disputed domain name may be used actively for e-mail purposes. 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 Respondent:<\/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": [
"Andrew Lothian"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2024-01-10 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is owner of International Registered Trademark No. 947686 for the word mark ARCELORMITTAL, registered on August 3, 2007 in Classes 6, 7, 9, 12, 19, 21, 39, 40, 41 and 42, designated in respect of over 40 territories.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"acrelorrnittal.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}