{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106145", "time_of_filling": "2024-01-09 09:41:44", "domain_names": [ "acrelornittal.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "ARCELORMITTAL" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Nicholas Bubon" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Key aspects of the Complainant’s contentions are summarized below.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Complainant’s Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant is a globally recognized company specializing in steel production with approximately 154,000 employees. Renowned as the largest steel producer worldwide, Complainant holds a leading position in various sectors such as automotive, construction, household appliances, and packaging. In 2022, Complainant produced 59 million tons of crude steel. Complainant holds sizeable captive supplies of raw materials and operates extensive distribution networks.<\/p>\n

Registration of the disputed domain name<\/strong><\/p>\n

According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name <acrelornittal.com<\/span>> was registered on January 5, 2023. However, according to the whois extract on the record, the disputed domain name was registered on January 5, 2024. For the purpose of this proceeding, the January 5, 2024 date as shown in the whois extract shall be considered as the date of registration.  <\/p>\n

First UDRP Element - disputed domain name is Confusingly Similar to the Complainant’s Trademark<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark ARCELORMITTAL , as an obvious misspelling including the inversion of the letters '‘C‘‘ and '‘R‘' in the term ARCELOR, instead of its original sequence, and substituting the letter '‘M‘' of the term MITTAL with the visually similar letter 'N', resulting in the reading as NITTAL. This 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.<\/p>\n

Second UDRP Element – The Respondent has no Rights or Legitimate Interests in the disputed domain name<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

Further, the Respondent is not a licensee, authorized agent, or related in any way to the Complainant, nor is authorized in any way to use the Complainant’s trademarks or to register or use the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

The Complainant claims there is no evidence of demonstrable preparations to use nor actual use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Rather, the disputed domain name redirects to Complainant’s official website.<\/p>\n

Lastly, the Complainant also claims that the disputed domain name is a typo-squatted version of the trademark ARCELORMITTAL, and that typo-squatting can evidence that a respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in a domain name.<\/p>\n

Third UDRP Element – The disputed domain name was Registered and is Being Used in Bad Faith<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that its ARCELORMITTAL<\/span> trademark is distinctive and widely known, and that past domain name dispute panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademark ARCELORMITTAL<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Additionally, the Complainant asserts that the misspelling of its trademark in the disputed domain name is deliberate and, by design, confusingly similar thereto. Such instances of typo-squatting have been found by previous panels to be evidence of bad faith.<\/p>\n

The disputed domain name redirects to the Complainant’s official website and as such the  Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s rights prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. Consequently, Complainant states that Respondent registered the domain name to take advantage of the Complainant’s trademark reputation, aiming to cause confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks and domain names.  <\/p>\n

Lastly, the disputed domain name has active MX records, meaning that it can be used for email purposes. Complainant suggests it is inconceivable that there could be any good faith use of the disputed domain name as part of an email address.<\/p>\n

The above summarized facts and arguments asserted by the Complainant are not contested by the Respondent because no Response was 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´s contentions are summarised above.<\/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": [ "Claire Kowarsky" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-02-14 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant relies on its registered trademark:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n

Mark<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Territory<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Registration No.<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Application Date<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Registration Date<\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

Classes<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

\n

ARCELORMITTAL<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

WIPO<\/p>\n

Designations: AU, BQ, CW, EM, GE, IS, JP, KR, NO, SG, SX, SY, TR, US, UZ, AL, AM, AZ, BA, BY, CH, CN, CU, DZ, EG, HR, IR, KE, KG, KP, KZ, LR, MA, MC, MD, ME, MK, MN, RS, RU, SD, SM, TJ, UA, VN<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

947686<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

03\/08\/2007<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

03\/08\/2007<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n<\/td>\n

\n

6, 7, 9, 12, 19, 21, 39, 40, 41, 42<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 Further, the Complainant operates its business using its domain name <arcelormittal.com<\/span>>, registered since January 27, 2006.<\/span><\/p>", "decision_domains": { "acrelornittal.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }