Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-103675

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.

The Complainant relies on its international trademark no. 947686 for the word ARCELORMITTAL, registered on 3 August 2007 and on its substantial goodwill under this mark.

The Complainant is the largest steel producing company in the world. It supplies steel under the mark ARCELORMITTAL which it registered as an international mark, no. 947686, on 3 August 2007. The Complainant is also the registrant of domain names containing "arcelormittal", including arcelormittal.com registered since 27 January 2006.

The disputed domain name <acrelomittal.com> was registered on 15 March 2021 and resolves to a web page with inactive links.

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.

The Complainant has registered rights in the mark ARCELORMITTAL as stated above. The Complainant also has extensive goodwill under this mark as the largest steel producer in the world.

The disputed domain name <acrelomittal.com> is confusingly to this mark, from which it differs only in the reversal of the letters "rc" and the omission of the second "r". It is a clear example of "typo-squatting".

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.

As stated above, the disputed domain name was registered recently and resolves to a web page with inactive links. The Panel is satisfied on the evidence that the Respondent has not used or made preparations to use the disputed domain name or any corresponding name for any bona fide offering of goods or services.

The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, which is obviously a typo-squatting of the principal mark of a leading global business.

The Respondent is not making any legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

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.

The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent did not have any bona fide purpose in registering the disputed domain name. In the circumstances, the Panel infers that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith, with a view to sale at a profit to the Complainant and/or disrupting the business of the Complainant, or some other bad faith purpose.

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.

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.

Typosquatting of principal mark of leading global steel producer.