{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106291", "time_of_filling": "2024-02-29 09:06:16", "domain_names": [ "acrcelormittal.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "ARCELORMITTAL" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "John Carter" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

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

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 tons crude steel made in 2022. It holds sizeable captive supplies of raw materials and operates extensive distribution networks.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant is the owner of the international trademark ARCELORMITTAL registered on August 3rd<\/sup>, 2007 and owner of the domain name <arcelormittal.com> registered since January 27th<\/sup>, 2006. The disputed domain name <acrcelormittal.com> was registered on February 20th<\/sup>, 2024, and resolves to an inactive website.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant states that<\/strong><\/span> the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark ARCELORMITTAL and its domain names associated<\/strong><\/span>, as it includes the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety. The obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL (i.e. the addition of the letter “C”) 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 the slight spelling variations does not prevent a domain name from being confusing similar to the Complainant’s trademark (WIPO Case No. D2020-3457). Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the addition of gTLD “.COM” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to its trademark.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name<\/strong><\/span>. The Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the UDRP. <\/span> <\/span>The Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name and thus is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and is not related in any way with the Complainant. 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 by the Complainant.<\/span>Furthermore, the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the Complainant’s trademark. The 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 (Forum Case No. 1597465). Finally, the disputed domain name points to an inactive page. The Complainant contends that the Respondent did not use the disputed domain name, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name (Forum Case No. FA1773444).<\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant finally contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith<\/strong><\/span>. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants distinctive trademark. Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademark ARCELORMITTAL in the following cases: CAC Case No. 101908, ARCELORMITTAL v. China Capital and CAC Case No. 101667, ARCELORMITTAL v. Robert Rudd. 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. <\/span>The Complainant states the misspelling of the trademark ARCELORMITTAL was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademark<\/span>. Previous UDRP Panels have seen such actions as evidence of bad faith (Forum Case No. FA 877979). <\/span>Furthermore, the disputed domain name points to an inactive page. The Complainant contends that 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 domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law. As prior WIPO 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 (WIPO Cases No. D2000-0003 or D2000-040).<\/span><\/p>\n

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/span><\/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": "", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is 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": [ "Petr Hostaš" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-03-26 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the owner of the international trademark n° 947686 ARCELORMITTAL<\/strong> registered on August 3rd<\/sup>, 2007.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span>The Complainant further owns domain name <arcelormittal.com<\/strong>> registered since January 27th<\/sup>, 2006.<\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/span>The disputed domain name <acrcelormittal.com<\/strong>> was registered on February 20th<\/sup>, 2024.<\/span><\/p>", "decision_domains": { "acrcelormittal.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }