FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
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, having manufactured 57.9 million tonnes of crude steel in 2024. It holds sizeable supplies of raw materials and operates extensive distribution networks.<\/p>\n
In addition to the Complainant’s ARCELORMITTAL registered trademark, the Complainant owns a domain name portfolio containing domain names such as <arcelormittal.com>, registered since January 27, 2006.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on November 24, 2025 and currently resolves to a parking page provided by the Registrar. MX records are configured in connection with the disputed domain name.<\/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:<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ARCELORMITTAL trademark. The substitution of the letter “i” by the letter “l” in the trademark and the addition of the term “-br”, referencing an abbreviation for Brazil, are not sufficient to escape a finding of confusing similarity in respect of the disputed domain name. These differences do not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark, or prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant and its trademark. A domain name that wholly incorporates a complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP.<\/p>\n
The addition of the suffix “.com” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant’s trademark or prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its associated domain name.<\/p>\n
The Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name. 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
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’s ARCELORMITTAL trademark, nor permission to apply for registration of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name resolves to a parking page. The Respondent did not use the disputed domain name and has no demonstrable plan to use it.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s distinctive ARCELORMITTAL trademark. Said trademark is widely known.<\/p>\n
Previous panels under the Policy have confirmed the notoriety of the Complainant’s trademark. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark. A previous case under the Policy noted that the Complainant’s said trademark is so well-known internationally for metals and steel production that it is inconceivable that the Respondent might have registered a domain name similar to or incorporating the mark without knowing of it.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name currently points to a parking page, and the Respondent has not demonstrated any proposed activity in respect of it. It is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the disputed domain name 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’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
The disputed domain name has been set up with MX records which suggests that it may be actively used for e-mail purposes, although it is inconceivable that the Respondent will be able to make any good faith use of the disputed domain name as part of an e-mail address.<\/p>\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": [ "Andrew Lothian" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-12-19 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant is owner of International Registered Trademark no. 947686 for the word mark ARCELORMITTAL, registered on August 3, 2007 in Classes 6, 7, 9, 12, 19, 21, 39, 40, 41 and 42, designated in respect of multiple territories.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "arcelormlttal-br.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }