Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-104270

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 is the owner of the international trademark n° ° 947686 ARCELORMITTAL registered on August 3, 2007. The Complainant also owns an important domain names portfolio, including the same distinctive wording ARCELORMITTAL, such as the domain name <arcelormittal.com> registered since January 27, 2006.

FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:

The Complainant, ARCELORMITTAL S.A., 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 with operations in more than 60 countries.

The disputed domain name was registered on January 11, 2022.

The website in relation with the disputed domain name is not active.

Past panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademark ARCELORMITTAL in the following cases:
- CAC Case No. 101908, ARCELORMITTAL v. China Capital ("The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark "ArcelorMittal", at least since 2007. The Complainant's trademark was registered prior to the registration of the disputed domain name (February 7, 2018) and is widely well-known.")

- CAC Case No. 101667, ARCELORMITTAL v. Robert Rudd ("The Panel is convinced that the Trademark is highly distinctive and well-established.")

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS:

COMPLAINANT:

The Complainant contends that:

1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark ARCELORMITTAL and its domain names. In support of this claim, the Complainant refers to prior UDRP cases and affirms that it is a well-established principle that when a domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant's registered mark, the first requirement under the UDRP shall be considered accomplished.

Further, the Complainant asserts that the addition of the geographic term "EU" is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.

2. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by ARCELORMITTAL S.A. in any way. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. Neither licence nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.

3. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Complainant contends that it is inconceivable that the Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the trademark ARCELORMITTAL. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent fails to make an active use at the disputed domain name, and that failure to make an active use of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith.


RESPONDENT:

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.

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).

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 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.

A) Confusing similarity

The disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s registered international trademark ARCELORMITTAL in its entirety with the addition of the geographic term "EU".
This Panel agrees with the Complainant's and previous Panels' view, that the addition of a generic term associated to a trademark does not create a new or different right to the mark or diminish confusing similarity.

B) Lack of legitimate rights or interests

The disputed domain name is a distinctive, non-descriptive name. It is unlikely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without having the Complainant firmly in mind. The Complainant’s assertions that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant are sufficient to constitute a prima facie demonstration of the absence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on the part of the Respondent. The burden of evidence therefore shifts to the Respondent to show, using tangible evidence, that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has made no attempt to do so.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C) Registered or Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant gives sound bases for its contention that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith.
Firstly, owing to the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademark, and so the Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name.
Secondly, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s unchallenged assertion that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the aim of creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.
Thirdly, it appears that the Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name.
Fourthly, the Respondent has not responded to nor denied any of the assertions made by the Complainant in this proceeding.