The Complainant is a world’s leading steel company with over 58 million of tons of crude steel made in 2023.<\/p>\n
The Complainant owns inter alia the domain name <arcelormittal.com> registered since January 27, 2006.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on July 18, 2024, and resolved to a registrar parking page. Furthermore, it has been checked and proved by the Complainant that MX servers are configured. <\/p>\n
Furthermore, and according to the Registrar, waiving the Whois privacy, the Respondent is a (supposed) company named \"Office Work\" based in Malta.<\/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": "
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark ArcelorMittal. The Complainant alleges that the apparent misspelling of the Complainant's trademark ArcelorMittal, namely the inversion of the letters “I” and “M” and the deletion of the letter “I” is characteristic of a typosquatting practice intended to create confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
Specifically, Complainant alleges that (i) Respondent is not identified in the Whois database by the disputed domain name but as \"Office Work\" (after waiving of the Whois data) and is in no way related to Complainant, (ii) Complainant does not perform any activity for, nor has any business with, Respondent, (iii) that the disputed domain name is a typo-squatted version of the ArcelorMittal trademark, and (iv) that the disputed domain name resolves to a registrar parking page and MX servers are configured and that the Respondent has not made any use of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant asserts that the ArcelorMittal trademark is widely known. The Complainant also notes that the reputation of the ArcelorMittal trademark has been confirmed, inter alia, in previous CAC cases No. 101908 and No. 101667.<\/p>\n
The Complainant alleges that, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's mark and its reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent registered the domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's mark.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the Complainant alleges that (i) the misspelling of the mark ArcelorMittal is intentionally designed to be confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark, (ii) the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity with respect to 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 unlawful. The inclusion of a famous mark in a domain name, coupled with registrar parking page, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use.<\/p>\n
Finally, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name has been set up with MX records indicating that it may be actively used for e-mail purposes. These actions are evidence of bad faith.<\/p>\n
No administratively compliant response has been submitted by the Respondent.<\/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.<\/span><\/p>\n Notification of the Respondent <\/span><\/p>\n No administratively compliant Response has been filed. It ought to be indicated that the written notice of the Complaint was returned to the Czech Arbitration Court.<\/p>\n The e-mail notice sent to <postmaster@bforbk.com> was returned back undelivered as the e-mail address had permanent fatal errors. The e-mail notice was also sent to <clonebox10@gmail.com> (registrant´s contact email), but the CAC never received any proof of delivery or notification of undelivery.<\/p>\n No further e-mail address could be found on the disputed domain name´s site. The Respondent never accessed the online platform.<\/p>\n The respondent never contacted the CAC nor provided any contentions.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"David-Irving Tayer"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2024-08-22 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of the international trademark n° 947686 ARCELORMITTAL registered on August 3, 2007 and duly renewed as per the copy of the WIPO database abstract provided.<\/p>\n The Complainant further owns domain name <arcelormittal.com> registered since January 27, 2006.<\/p>\n The disputed domain name <arcelomrttal.com> was registered on July 18, 2024 for which It is specified that the MX servers are configured.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"arcelomrttal.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}