The Complainant is a company specialising in steel production and operates globally (www.arcelormittal.com).<\/p>\n
The Complainant is the largest steel-producing company in the world<\/span>, and is the market leader in steel used in automotive, construction, household appliances, and packaging. In 2024<\/span>, it produced 57.9 million tons of crude steel<\/span>. The Complainant also holds sizeable captive supplies of raw materials and operates extensive distribution networks across its markets.<\/p>\n The disputed domain name <arcelorbrasil.online><\/span> was registered on September 9, 2025<\/span>. As of the date of the Complaint, it resolves to an <\/strong>inactive page<\/span>.<\/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 <<\/span>arcelorbrasil.online><\/span>.<\/p>",
"no_response_filed": " FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/span><\/p>\n COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <arcelorbrasil.online> is confusingly similar to its registered trademark ARCELOR, which is incorporated in its entirety and reproduced identically within the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n The Complainant argues that the addition of the geographic term “BRASIL” is insufficient to prevent a finding of confusing similarity. According to the Complainant, the presence of this additional term does not alter the overall impression of the disputed domain name as being connected to the Complainant and its trademark. Instead, it may even increase the likelihood of confusion by suggesting a regional branch or subsidiary of the Complainant.<\/p>\n The Complainant relies on the well-established principle under the UDRP that “a domain name that wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP,” citing Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Vasiliy Terkin<\/i>, WIPO Case No. D2003-0888.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the Complainant states that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.online” does not affect the assessment of confusing similarity. As reiterated in the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1, “the applicable Top Level Domain (‘TLD’) in a domain name (e.g., ‘.com’, ‘.club’, ‘.nyc’) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test.”<\/p>\n In light of the above, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name <arcelorbrasil.online> is confusingly similar to its trademark ARCELOR.<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name <arcelorbrasil.online>.<\/p>\n Relying on Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.<\/i>, WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, the Complainant recalls that it must make out a prima facie<\/i> case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such a case is established, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database by the disputed domain name. Previous UDRP panels have consistently found that a respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name when the Whois information does not correspond to that domain name (see Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Chad Moston \/ Elite Media Group, Forum Case No. FA 1781783). Accordingly, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.<\/p>\n The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way, nor has the Respondent been licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted to use the Complainant’s ARCELOR trademark or to register the disputed domain name incorporating it. The Complainant states that it has no business or commercial relationship with the Respondent.<\/p>\n Finally, the Complainant notes that the disputed domain name is inactive. The Respondent has not made any use of the disputed domain name, nor is there evidence of any demonstrable preparations to use it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial purpose. In similar circumstances, panels have held that the mere passive holding of a domain name does not constitute a bona fide use (see Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. Joannet Macket \/ JM Consultants, Forum Case No. FA 1773444).<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name <arcelorbrasil.online>.<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <arcelorbrasil.online> was registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.<\/p>\n According to the Complainant, its trademark ARCELOR is distinctive and widely known internationally in the steel production industry.<\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that the inclusion of the geographic term “BRASIL” in the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith, particularly in light of the notoriety of the trademark ARCELOR.<\/p>\n The Complainant further submits that the disputed domain name currently resolves to an inactive page and that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in connection with it. According to the Complainant, there is no conceivable legitimate use of the disputed domain name that would not result in misleading consumers, infringing the Complainant’s trademark rights, or otherwise amounting to bad faith use.<\/p>\n In conclusion, the Complainant contends that the cumulative circumstances of the case demonstrate that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Accordingly, the Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to it.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED. <\/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.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Barbora Donathová"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2025-10-14 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant, ARCELORMITTAL<\/span>, states and provides evidence to support that it is the owner of international trademark registration No. 778212 ARCELOR<\/span>, registered on February 25, 2002<\/span>, which predates the registration of the disputed domain name <arcelorbrasil.online>.<\/p>\n The Complainant further states that it owns an important domain name portfolio, including domain names that incorporate the distinctive wording “ARCELOR”<\/span>, such as <arcelor.com>, which has been registered and used since August 29, 2001<\/span>.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"arcelorbrasil.online": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n
\n
\n