{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107534",
    "time_of_filling": "2025-05-05 09:43:27",
    "domain_names": [
        "xn--aomittal-s0a.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "ARCELORMITTAL"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "Acos Mittal"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span>The Complainant is ARCELORMITTAL S.A., a company specializing in steel production. 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 tons crude steel made in 2024.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span>The Complainant also owns an important domain names portfolio, such as the domain name &lt;mittal-steel.com&gt; registered since May 18, 2009.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span>The disputed domain name &lt;xn--aomittal-s0a.com&gt; (&lt;a&ccedil;omittal.com&gt;) was registered on April 26, 2025 and resolved at the time of filing to an active website offering steel materials.<\/span><\/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 name.<\/p>",
    "no_response_filed": "<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span>COMPLAINANT:<\/span><br \/><br \/><span>The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark.<\/span><br \/><br \/><span>Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In this regard, the Complainant states that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, that<\/span> the Whois info of the Respondent is false, since the location does not exist and the registrant's use of the name \"Acos Mittal\" reinforces the risk of confusion, and is evidence of lack of legitimate interest. Furthermore, the Respondent<span> is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way, that the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent, and that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Trademark or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant and that there cannot be any <em>bona fide <\/em>offering of goods since the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to offer services in direct competition with the Complainant.<\/span><br \/><br \/><span>Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It contends that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its well-known Trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and that the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name by diverting Internet users searching for the Complainant&rsquo;s website to the Respondent&rsquo;s competing website, in order to create a likelihood of confusion with the Trademark for the Respondent&rsquo;s commercial gain by offering competing services is evidence of bad faith.<\/span><br \/><br \/><span>RESPONDENT:<\/span><br \/><br \/><span>No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/span><\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>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": "<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 name (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 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": "<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": [
        "Stefanie Efstathiou LL.M. mult."
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-06-11 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<div class=\"row\">\n<div class=\"col-md\">\n<div class=\"print-fld print-textarea\">\n<div class=\"legacy-textarea\">\n<p>The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademarks &ldquo;MITTAL&rdquo; such as:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>International trademark No. 1198046, registered on December 5, 2013;<\/li>\n<li>European trademark No. 3975786, registered on August 9, 2004;<\/li>\n<li>European trademark No. 4507471, registered on June 23, 2005;<\/li>\n<li>Brazilian trademark No. 827015844, registered on July 11, 2017&nbsp;<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>(hereinafter referred to as the \"Trademark\").<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "xn--aomittal-s0a.com": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}