{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106362", "time_of_filling": "2024-03-19 09:03:06", "domain_names": [ "arceleormittal.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "ARCELORMITTAL" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Bal Ford" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

A<\/strong>. Complainant<\/strong>'s Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant's statements of fact can be summarised as follows:<\/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.<\/p>\n

In addition to the trade mark mentioned in the section 'Identification of Rights', the Complainant also owns numerous domain names, including <arcelormittal.com>, which was registered in 2006.<\/p>\n

B. Respondent<\/strong>'s Factual Allegations<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has failed to serve a Response in this UDRP administrative proceeding. Hence, the Complainant's factual allegations are uncontested.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings in respect of the domain name <arceleormittal.com> ('the disputed domain name').<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "

A<\/strong>. Complainant<\/strong>'s Submissions<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows:<\/p>\n

I<\/strong>. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark ARCELORMITTAL to the extent that the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trade mark in its entirety. The addition of the letter 'o' in the disputed domain name string is  characteristic of the typosquatting practice, which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the ARCELORMITTAL trade mark. Furthermore, the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) suffix (<.com>) is typically disregarded in the assessment of identity or confusingly similar under paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP Policy.<\/p>\n

II<\/strong>. <\/strong>The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not carry out any activity for, or has any business with, the Complainant. Neither licence nor authorisation has been given to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant's trade mark, or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name on the Complainant’s behalf.<\/p>\n

The Complainant also submits that the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

Lastly, the Complainant avers that the disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the ARCELORMITTAL trade mark, and that such practice evidences the Respondent’s lack of rights of legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n

III<\/strong>. <\/strong><\/span>The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n

Registration<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the trade mark ARCELORMITTAL is well-known and distinctive, and that its notoriety has been acknowledged in prior UDRP decisions, namely: CAC Case No. 101908, ARCELORMITTAL v China Capital; and CAC Case No. 101667, ARCELORMITTAL v Robert Rudd.<\/p>\n

The Complainant further asserts that (i) the misspelling of the trade mark ARCELORMITTAL in the disputed domain name string was intentionally designed to be confusingly similar with the Complainant's trade mark; and (ii) given the distinctiveness and reputation of the trade mark ARCELORMITTAL, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trade mark ARCELORMITTAL.<\/p>\n

Use <\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant submits that the Respondent's website contains PPC links related to the Complainant’s activities, such that the Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users seeking ARCELORMITTAL products to the third party websites, for financial gain (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP Policy).<\/p>\n

In addition, the Complainant submits that the Respondent has configured the disputed domain name with an MX (mail exchange) record which suggests that it may be actively used for email purposes.<\/p>\n

The Complainant therefore concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/p>\n

B<\/strong>. Respondent<\/strong>'s Submissions<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has failed to serve a Response in this UDRP administrative proceeding. Hence, the Complainant's submissions are uncontested.<\/p>", "rights": "

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the UDRP 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 UDRP 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 UDRP 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": [ "Gustavo Moser" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-04-10 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant relies upon the following registered trade mark:<\/p>\n