The Complainant is a steel manufacturing company doing business worldwide.<\/p>\n
The Panel recognizes the distinctive and well-known character of Complainant´s ARCELORMITTAL trademark.<\/p>\n
The Complainant maintains a portfolio of domain names incorporating the ARCELORMITTAL trademark, where <arcelormittal.com> is registered on January 27, 2006 and redirects to its official website.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <arcelorrmiital.com> was registered on November 5, 2025 and is inactive.<\/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": "
THE COMPLAINANT
The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.
In particular, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name consists of a misspelling of the Complainant’s ARCELORMITTAL mark, specifically adding the letters “r” and “i” but where the trademark remains recognizable. Thus, the dispute domain name is confusingly similar for the purposes of the first element.<\/p>\n
Further, the Complainant contends that none of the circumstances described in paragraph 4 (c) of the Policy applies. Indeed, says the Complainant, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name since it is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name and, neither the Respondent has any business with the Complainant. The Complainant also asserts that he has not given to the Respondent a license or authorization to make use of the ARCELORMITTAL trademark or, to apply for registration of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
Since the ARCELORMITTAL trademark is widely known, the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant when registering the disputed domain name. Indeed, says the Complainant, the misspelling of its trademark in the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith registration.<\/p>\n
Finally, the Complainant supports a finding of bad faith use based on the inaction of the disputed domain name and also for the activation of the Mail Exchange (“MX”) records, which suggests it may be actively used for email purposes.<\/p>\n
THE RESPONDENT
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": [ "Manuel Moreno-Torres" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-12-10 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant is the owner of the ARCELORMITTAL trademark in different jurisdictions. By way of example, an International trademark with registration number 947686, registered on August 3, 2007.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "arcelorrmiital.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }