{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108644",
    "time_of_filling": "2026-05-13 09:47:09",
    "domain_names": [
        "corporativoarcelormittal.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "ARCELORMITTAL"
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "NAMESHIELD S.A.S.",
    "respondent": [
        "JHONATAN  EDGAR"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p><strong>THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS&nbsp;<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant submits that it 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. It holds sizeable captive supplies of raw materials and operates extensive distribution networks.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant refers to its IR provided above and its domain name portfolio. The disputed domain name was registered on May 8, 2026.<\/p>\n<p>The disputed domain name resolves to a website allegedly operated by \"ARCELORMITTAL MEXICO\" and claims to provide competing goods.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant's logo is displayed on the website at the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n<p>MX servers are configured.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark since the addition of the term &ldquo;CORPORATIVO&rdquo; (meaning &ldquo;CORPORATE&rdquo; in English) is not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark.&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><span>The Complainant contends that the addition of the &ldquo;.com&rdquo; TLD does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark.&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span><strong>THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME&nbsp;<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name.&nbsp;<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and he is not related in any way with the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.<\/p>\n<p>Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant&rsquo;s trademark or register the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant claims that since the disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers competing products, this does not create rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, the Complainant submits that the Respondent uses the Complainant&rsquo;s orange logo and its name, as it identifies as \"ARCELORMITTAL MEXICO\", which evidences that the Respondent intends to pass off as the Complainant.<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, the Complainant states that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n<p><strong>THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS BEING USED IN BAD FAITH&nbsp;<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant's submissions on the third UDRP element can be summarized as follows:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The Complainant's trademark is well-known and its well-known status and reputation were confirmed by prior UDRP panels;<\/li>\n<li>The Respondent makes direct references to the Complainant on his website and passes off as the Complainant;<\/li>\n<li>\n<p>The Complainant is one of the world&rsquo;s leading producers of steel products and enjoys a strong worldwide reputation, especially in Mexico, where the Respondent is located and where the Complainant operates via its local subsidiary. 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 and<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>The Respondent's use of the disputed domain name for a competing website demonstrates bad faith and the fact that MX servers are configured further indicates bad faith, in the circumstances of this case.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Based on the above, the Complainant submits that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant&rsquo;s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent&rsquo;s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent&rsquo;s website or location, as provided by Policy, paragraph 4(b) (iv).<\/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>The Complainant's contentions are summarized in the Factual Background section above.<\/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 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": [
        "Igor Motsnyi"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-06-05 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>The Complainant relies on the following trademark registration:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>\n<p>International Trademark Registration under the Madrid system (IR) \"ArcelorMittal\" (word) no. 947686, registration date - August 3, 2007 and protected inter alia in Albania, Algeria, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, China, Cuba, Japan, Serbia, Switzerland and Ukraine.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span>The Complainant also refers to its domain name portfolio, including &lt;arcelormittal.com&gt; registered since January 27, 2006.<\/span><\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "corporativoarcelormittal.com": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}