{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107149", "time_of_filling": "2024-12-12 14:03:27", "domain_names": [ "arcelormittalsusa.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "ARCELORMITTAL" ], "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.", "respondent": [ "Walter Schick" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

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

The Complainant is the largest steel producer globally, specialising in automotive, construction, household appliances and packaging, with a production of 58.1m tons of crude steel in 2023.<\/p>\n

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

The Respondent has failed to submit a Response in this UDRP administrative proceeding, resulting in the Complainant's allegations remaining unchallenged.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "

The Panel is unaware of any other pending or concluded legal proceedings concerning the domain name <arcelormittalsusa.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

A<\/span><\/strong>.<\/span>1 <\/span><\/strong>The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <arcelormittalsusa.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark ARCELORMITTAL. The mere addition of the letter 's' and the geographical term 'usa' fails to diminish the striking resemblance. Established jurisprudence confirms that the incorporation of a registered trade mark into a domain name suffices to demonstrate confusing similarity.<\/p>\n

Moreover, the generic Top-Level Domain ('the TLD') suffix (<.com>) is typically disregarded in the assessment of identity or confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP Policy.<\/p>\n

A<\/span><\/strong>.<\/span>2 <\/span><\/strong>The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests concerning the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name, nor has there been any authorisation from the Complainant to use its trade mark ARCELORMITTAL. Additionally, the disputed domain name currently resolves to a parking page, signalling an absence of legitimate use and an intent to mislead Internet users.<\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.<\/span>3 The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.3<\/strong>.1 Registration<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the trade mark ARCELORMITTAL is both well-known and distinctive, a fact acknowledged in prior UDRP decisions, notably CAC Case No. 101908, ARCELORMITTAL v China Capital; and CAC Case No. 101667, ARCELORMITTAL v Robert Rudd. It is reasonable to conclude that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's rights.<\/p>\n

A<\/strong>.3<\/strong>.2 Use <\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has demonstrated no activity concerning the disputed domain name, which remains inactive. The Complainant argues that any conceivable act of use would be illegitimate – including passing off or infringement of consumer protection legislation. Previous UDRP panel decisions suggest that the incorporation of a famous trade mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, constitutes evidence of bad faith.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, the Respondent has configured the disputed domain name with an MX record, suggesting a potential misuse for email purposes. Therefore, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has acted in bad faith.<\/p>\n

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

The Respondent has defaulted in this UDRP administrative proceeding, failing to advance any substantive defence.<\/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 the UDRP have been duly met, with no grounds preventing a decision from being issued. <\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Gustavo Moser" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-01-08 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant, ArcelorMittal, claims rights to the following registered trade mark:<\/p>\n