The Complainant is ArcelorMittal SA of Luxembourg, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0140765615 of Toronto, Canada / Elena Blinova, Galina Ehlmoxsen of Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 17, 2015. On August 17, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 17, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 25, 2015 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on August 28, 2015.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 1, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 21, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 22, 2015.
The Center appointed Piotr Nowaczyk as the sole panelist in this matter on October 8, 2015. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background
According to the Complaint, the Complainant is the largest steel making company in the world. It was formed in 2006. Sir Lakshmi Niwas Mittal, also known as Lakshmi Mittal, is the chief executive officer of the Complainant.
The Complainant owns among others:
(a) Community Trademark Registration for a word trademark MITTAL No. 4592382 for goods and services in class 39, registered on December 5, 2006;
(b) Community Trademark Registration for a word trademark MITTAL STEEL No. 4233301 for goods and services in classes 6, 40, registered on March 27, 2006;
(c) US Trademark Registration for a word trademark ARCELORMITTAL No. 3643643, registered on June 23, 2009; and
(d) International Registration for a word trademark ARCELORMITTAL No. 947686 for goods and services in classes 6, 7, 9, 12, 19, 21, 39, 40, 41, 42, registered on August 3, 2007.
The Complainant also holds several domain names similar to trademark ARCELORMITTAL or MITTAL such as:
registered on January 21, 2006
registered on June 25, 2006
registered on June 25, 2006
registered on September 18, 2011
registered on June 25, 2006
registered on December 22, 2006
registered on July 12, 2007
registered on January 31, 2006
registered on February 5, 2005
The disputed domain name was registered on July 17, 2015. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well-known and distinctive trademarks MITTAL and ARCELORMITTAL. In the Complainant’s opinion the omission of the letter “t” in the term “Mital” is not sufficient to distinguish the brand MITTAL. The likelihood of confusion with the trademark MITTAL is all the greater if associated with the name “Lakshmi”. Furthermore, the Complainant asserts that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.com” does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademarks and its domain names associated.
The Complainant states 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. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant. Moreover, the Complainant contends that the website associated with the disputed domain name displays content related to the activity of the Complainant, therefore, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is neither a fair use nor a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the deliberate intention of targeting the Complainant’s trademark. Firstly, by the omission of the letter “t” in the disputed domain name, the Respondent has attempted to create a likelihood of confusion which should be considered as typosquatting. Secondly, given the distinctiveness of its trademarks, the Complainant contends that it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks and used it for the purpose of misleading and diverting Internet traffic. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy places a burden on the Complainant to prove the presence of three separate elements. The three elements can be summarized as follows:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used by the respondent in bad faith.
The requested remedy may only be granted if the above criteria are met. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In the present case, the disputed domain name incorporates the word “mital” which is an example of an obvious misspelling of the MITTAL trademark which is registered by the Complainant. As the word “mital” remains the principal component of the disputed domain name, this is a “typosquatting” case where the disputed domain name is a slight misspelling of the registered trademark (see the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 1.10 and cases cited therein). This, in the view of the Panel, is bound to lead to confusion on the part of consumers and Internet users seeking information on the Complainant’s company and its products marketed under its well-known registered trademark MITTAL.
Further confusion is generated by the fact that the disputed domain name also incorporates the name of the chief executive officer the Complainant, Lakshmi Mittal, who is a well-known businessman internationally (see ArcelorMittal SA v. Oneandone Private Registration / Darren Morgan,WIPO Case No. D2011-0326).
In the Panel’s opinion, the gTLD “.com” does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s registered trademarks (see The Coca-Cola Company v. David Jurkiewicz,WIPO Case No. DME2010-0008; Telecom Personal, S.A., v. NAMEZERO.COM, Inc,WIPO Case No. D2001-0015).
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MITTAL trademark and as a consequence, the Complaint meets the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The overall burden of proof on this element rests with the Complainant. However, it is well established by previous UDRP panel decisions that once a complainant establishes a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, the burden shifts to the respondent to rebut the complainant’s contentions. If the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. (See Danzas Holding AG, DHL Operations B.V. v. Ma Shikai,WIPO Case No. D2008-0441; see also the WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 2.1 and cases cited therein).
The Panel notes the following circumstances presented in the Complaint in relation to any possible rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name: (a) the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way; (b) the Respondent is neither licensed nor authorized by the Complainant to use the Complainant’s trademarks; (c) there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name; (d) the website associated with the disputed domain name displays content related to the activity of the Complainant, which is neither a fair use nor a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Accordingly, in the absence of any evidence to support a possible basis on which the Respondent may have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s unrebutted prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and concludes that the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Firstly, the disputed domain name was registered in July 2015 whereas the Complainant registered the MITTAL trademark not later than in 2006. Given the established position of the Complainant in the steel industry and distinctiveness of the MITTAL trademark as well as the name of Lakshmi Mittal, the Panel finds that the Respondent most likely knew about the Complainant’s rights and therefore registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Secondly, the Respondent is also using the disputed domain name in bad faith, which was evidenced by the fact that it directs Internet users to a website which includes information about the Complainant’s activity. Moreover, the Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the disputed domain name.
All of these facts support the inference that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website at the disputed domain name by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, or endorsement of or affiliation with the website. The Panel finds that the above constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy and therefore the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Piotr Nowaczyk
Sole Panelist
Date: October 22, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy