According to the information provided by the registrar the disputed domain name <arcelormittal-vendors.com> was registered on 3 February 2025.
The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active webpage. In addition, MX records have been set up. <\/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<\/b>
Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.
<\/p>\n
According to the evidence submitted by Complainant, Complainant is the largest steel-producing company in the world. Complainant also owns a number of domain names, including the same distinctive words ARCELORMITTAL, of which the domain name <arcelormittal.com> was registered on 27 January 2006.<\/p>\n
According to Complainant the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark ARCELORMITTAL as the disputed domain name contains the trademark in its entirety. The addition of the term “vendors” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark ARCELORMITTAL. It does not change the overall impression of the disputed domain name as being connected to Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent is not related in any way with Complainant. Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with Respondent. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to Respondent to make any use of Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the disputed domain name is inactive. Complainant contends that Respondent did not make any use of disputed domain name, nor has any demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
According to Complainant the disputed domain name is registered and is being used in bad faith. Given the distinctiveness of Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of Complainant's trademark. 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 Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": " Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown 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": " 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": [
"Dinant T.L. Oosterbaan"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-03-07 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " Complainant is the owner of the international trademark nr. 947686 ARCELORMITTAL registered on 3 August 2007.<\/strong><\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"arcelormittal-vendors.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}
Furthermore, the disputed domain name points to an inactive page. Complainant argues that 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 disputed domain name by Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of Complainant’s rights under trademark law. As prior 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. Finally, the disputed domain name has been set up with MX records which suggests that it may be actively used for email purposes. On those facts, Complainant contends that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name and is using it in bad faith.
Respondent<\/strong>
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>",
"rights": "