The Complainant is ArcelorMittal (Société Anonyme), Luxembourg, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Andrea Chi, United States of America (“United States” or “US”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 19, 2020. On November 20, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 23, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the 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 November 25, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 15, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 22, 2020. The Center appointed Mario Soerensen Garcia as the sole panelist in this matter on January 5, 2021. 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 The Complainant is one of the world’s leading steel and mining company, formed in 2006 through the merger of Arcelor with Mittal Steel Technologies, with headquarter in Luxembourg and employing over 191,000 employees globally serving customers in 160 countries. The Complainant owns several trademark registrations in multiple jurisdictions for the trademark ARCELORMITTAL, including the following: - US trademark registration No. 3643643, granted on June 23, 2009; The Complainant registered the domain name The disputed domain name was registered on May 21, 2020 and currently resolves to an inactive website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant argues that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on May 21, 2020 and that it comprises the identical Complainant’s ARCELORMITTAL trademark, considering that it is standard practice when comparing a disputed domain name to Complainant’s trademarks, to not take the extension into account. According to the complaint, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks and domain name. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant in any way, that Complainant has not licensed, authorized or permitted Respondent to register domain names incorporating the Complainant’s trademarks and that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Complainant concludes that the disputed domain name was registered without any legitimate interest. In addition, the Complainant says that the Respondent’s website corresponding to the disputed domain name resolves to a website with a blank page and no content and previously triggered a Google Chrome security warning stating that “attackers might be trying to steal your information from arcelormittal.tech (for example passwords, messages or credit cards)” and that the presence of such a notice demonstrates that it might not be a safe destination. The Complainant argues that the registration of the disputed domain name is indicative of an intention to hold it for some future active use in bad faith. According to the Complainant, it is not possible to conceive of a plausible situation in which the Respondent would have been unaware of the Complainant’s well-known marks when registered the disputed domain name. Also, the Complainant mentions that the Respondent holds registrations for several other domain names that misappropriate well-known third-parties’ trademarks, which demonstrates that the Respondent is engaging in a pattern of cybersquatting. Finally, the Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings As per paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The evidence presented demonstrates that the Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations for ARCELORMITTAL around the world, including the US. The Complainant’s trademarks predate the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL in its entirety. The addition of the generic Top Level Domain “.tech” does not avoid confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. As numerous prior UDRP panels have recognized, the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety or a dominant feature of a trademark is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark. See section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). The Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been proved by the Complainant, i.e., the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent has not submitted a response to the Complaint. There is no evidence that the Respondent has any authorization to use the Complainant’s trademark or to register domain names containing the trademark ARCELORMITTAL. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name or that before any notice of the dispute the Respondent has made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain name, which incorporates the Complainant’s trademark, does not correspond to a bona fide use of the disputed domain name under the Policy. For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied, i.e., the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The trademark ARCELORMITTAL is registered by the Complainant in several jurisdictions, including the US, and has been used since a long time. Also, the Complainant registered in 2006 and has been using the domain name The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL and the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant’s ARCELORMITTAL mark is distinctive, widely known and has online visibility. Thus, a domain name that comprises such a well-known mark is already suggestive of the registrant’s bad faith. In addition to the above, the Complainant showed evidence that the Respondent registered other domain names comprising famous third-parties’ marks, which obviously indicates bad faith and attempt of taking undue advantage. The Complainant’s ARCELORMITTAL mark is widely known and has a strong online visibility. Thus, the fact that the disputed domain name comprises such a mark is itself evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith, as it is impossible that the Respondent did not know the Complainant’s marks when registering the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complainant’s allegations. In these circumstances, and as found in the panel’s decision in The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company,WIPO Case No. D2009-0610, “the failure of the Respondent to respond to the Complaint further supports an inference of bad faith”. Taking also into account that the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page, this Panel finds under the circumstances that the Respondent has intentionally targeted the Complainant’s trademarks in the disputed domain name. This Panel finds that the Respondent’s attempt of taking undue advantage of the trademark ARCELORMITTAL and the non-use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied, i.e., the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 Mario Soerensen Garcia
- International trademark registration No. 947686, granted on August 3, 2007; and
- Benelux trademark registration No. 0824918, granted on June 18, 2007.
Sole Panelist
Date: January 19, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy