{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107421",
    "time_of_filling": "2025-03-20 09:47:17",
    "domain_names": [
        "arcelormttatendimento.online ",
        "Arcelordistribuidora.online",
        "arceloratendimentodistribuidora.online ",
        "arcelordistribuicaosuporte.online"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "ARCELORMITTAL"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "gestaoacelor ac"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p>FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n<p>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 57.9 million tonnes of crude steel having been made in 2024. It holds sizeable supplies of raw materials and operates extensive distribution networks.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to the Complainant&rsquo;s ARCELOR registered trademarks, the Complainant owns a domain name portfolio containing domain names such as &lt;arcelor.com&gt;, registered since August 29, 2001.<\/p>\n<p>The disputed domain names were registered as follows:<\/p>\n<p>&lt;arcelormttatendimento.online&gt; was registered on March 13, 2025;<\/p>\n<p>&lt;arcelordistribuidora.online&gt; was registered on March 13, 2025;<\/p>\n<p>&lt;arceloratendimentodistribuidora.online&gt; was registered on March 14, 2025; and<\/p>\n<p>&lt;arcelordistribuicaosuporte.online&gt; was registered on March 14, 2025.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;All of the disputed domain names are currently inactive.<\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain names.<\/p>",
    "no_response_filed": "<p>Complainant:<\/p>\n<p>The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant&rsquo;s ARCELOR trademark. The addition of the terms &ldquo;mtt atendimento&rdquo; (meaning &ldquo;mtt service&rdquo; in Portuguese), &ldquo;distribuidora&rdquo; (meaning &ldquo;distributor&rdquo;) &ldquo;atendimento distribuidora&rdquo; (meaning &ldquo;distributor service&rdquo;) or &ldquo;distribuicao suporte&rdquo; (meaning &ldquo;distribution support&rdquo;) respectively are not sufficient to escape a finding of confusing similarity in respect of the disputed domain name concerned. None of the said additions change the overall impression of each designation as being connected to the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark, or prevent the likelihood of confusion between each of the disputed domain names and the Complainant and its trademark. A domain name that wholly incorporates a complainant&rsquo;s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP.<\/p>\n<p>The addition of the suffix &ldquo;.online&rdquo; does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark or prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain names and the Complainant, its trademark and its associated domain name.<\/p>\n<p>The Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain names. Previous panels have held that a respondent is not commonly known by a domain name if the Whois information is not similar thereto.<\/p>\n<p>The Respondent is not related to the Complainant in any way. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for the Respondent and has no business with it. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant&rsquo;s ARCELOR trademark, nor permission to apply for registration of the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n<p>The disputed domain names are inactive. The Respondent did not use the disputed domain names and has no demonstrable plan to use them.<\/p>\n<p>The disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The disputed domain names are identical or at least confusingly similar to the Complainant&rsquo;s distinctive ARCELOR trademark registered in Brazil. Said trademark is widely known, and operates worldwide, especially in Brazil.<\/p>\n<p>Previous panels under the Policy have confirmed the notoriety of the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark. Furthermore, the Complainant is one of the world&rsquo;s leading producers of steel products and enjoys a strong worldwide reputation. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark.<\/p>\n<p>The disputed domain names are currently inactive, and the Respondent has not demonstrated any proposed activity in respect of them. It is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain names by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by constituting passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant&rsquo;s rights under trademark law. Previous panels under the Policy have held that the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use.<\/p>\n<p>Respondent:<\/p>\n<p>No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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": "<p>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 names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
    "bad_faith": "<p>The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
    "procedural_factors": "<p>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": [
        "Andrew Lothian"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-04-14 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>Among others, the Complainant is the owner of the following registered trademarks:<\/p>\n<p>International Registered Trademark Number 778212 for the word mark ARCELOR, registered on February 25, 2002 in Classes 1, 6, 7, 9, 12, 37, 40, and 42, designated in respect of over 25 territories.<\/p>\n<p>Brazilian Registered Trademark Number 824400313 for the word mark ARCELOR, registered on July 24, 2007 in Class 40.<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "arcelormttatendimento.online ": "TRANSFERRED",
        "Arcelordistribuidora.online": "TRANSFERRED",
        "arceloratendimentodistribuidora.online ": "TRANSFERRED",
        "arcelordistribuicaosuporte.online": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}