The Complainant is ArcelorMittal (Société Anonyme), Luxembourg, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Empirical Data Insights, EDI, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 20, 2021. On May 21, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 21, 2021, 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 May 28, 2021, 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 June 2, 2021. 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 June 3, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 23, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 5, 2021. The Center appointed Taras Kyslyy as the sole panelist in this matter on July 12, 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 headquartered in Luxembourg, and is one of the world’s major international steel producers, manufacturing steel in 18 countries around the world. In 2019, the Complainant produced over 89 million tons of crude steel globally. The Complainant employs over 191,000 employees globally, serving customers in 160 countries. The Complainant owns ARCELOR trademark registrations in various jurisdictions, including International Trademark registration No. 778212, registered on February 25, 2002. The Complainant has its internet presence and shares information about its products, services, and news on its website at “www.arcelormittal.com”. The disputed domain name was registered on November 17, 2020, and previously resolved to a website offering various data aggregation and research services. Currently, the disputed domain name resolves to a website featuring pay-per-click (“PPC”) links. The Complainant sent three cease-and-desist letters ignored by the Respondent. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) shall not be taken into account when comparing the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Complainant’s trademark. The addition of a generic descriptive term “research” does not preclude confusing similarity of the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has rights in its trademark, which vested prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant in any way. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Respondent almost certainly registered the disputed domain name in order to divert Internet users to the Respondent’s websites, which does not constitute use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. At the time of registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent knew, or at least should have known, of the existence of the Complainant's trademark and that registration of domain names containing well-known trademarks constitutes bad faith per se. The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in a nefarious attempt to profit from the association with the Complainant’s trademark and is using it as “bait-and- switch” to promote its unrelated, unverified services. The Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its trademark by registering the confusingly similar disputed domain name, which demonstrates that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to confuse unsuspecting Internet users looking for the Complainant’s services, and to mislead internet users as to the source of the disputed domain name and website. By creating this likelihood of confusion between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name, leading to misperceptions as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain name, the Respondent has demonstrated a nefarious intent to capitalize on the fame and goodwill of the Complainant’s trademark in order to increase traffic to the websites at the disputed domain name for the Respondent’s own pecuniary gain. The Respondent has ignored the Complainant’s attempts to resolve this dispute ignoring the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letters. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar According to section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (the “WIPO Overview 3.0”) the applicable gTLD in a domain name (e.g., “.com”, “.club”, “.nyc”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. Thus, the Panel disregards gTLD “.com” for the purposes of the confusing similarity test. According to section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark the domain name will normally be considered identical or confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing. The Panel finds that the disputed domain incorporates the entirety of the Complainant’s trademark. According to section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. The Panel finds that the addition of term “research” in the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. Considering the above, the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has established prima facie that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Respondent provided no evidence that it holds rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, which could demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests (see, e.g., World Natural Bodybuilding Federation, Inc. v. Daniel Jones TheDotCafe,WIPO Case No. D2008-0642). The Complainant did not license or otherwise agree for use of its prior registered trademark by the Respondent, thus no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name could be reasonably claimed (see, e.g., Sportswear Company S.P.A. v. Tang Hong,WIPO Case No. D2014-1875). Noting the risk of implied affiliation between the disputed domain name and the confusingly similar widely-known trademark of the Complainant, the Panel finds that there is no plausible fair use to which the disputed domain name could be put that would not have the effect of being somehow connected to the Complainant (see, e.g., Instagram, LLC v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot / Zayed,WIPO Case No. D2019-2897). The Complainant has provided undated evidence regarding the use of the disputed domain name, claiming that the disputed domain name initially resolved to a site with PPC links (as it currently does) and then resolved to a website featuring the Complainant’s trademark and offering data-aggregation services. The evidence provided by the Complainant shows that the website included references to “Arcelor”, “Arcelor Research”, and “Arcelor Reports”, as well as included placeholder text in Latin and contact information that the Complainant has demonstrated does not yield any results pertaining to the Respondent or the above-referenced names. Lastly, the website offered a specialized service for clients willing to subscribe. With regards the subscription-based service website, the Respondent’s intent to misdirect Internet users for its commercial benefit is apparent considering the construction of the disputed domain name coupled together with the repeated references and use of the Complainant’s trademark throughout the website. According to section 2.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, the use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s mark or otherwise mislead Internet users. The Panel finds this applies to the present case. Considering the above, the Panel finds the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith According to section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. The Panel is convinced that the Complainant’s trademark is well established through long and widespread use and the Complainant has acquired a significant reputation and level of goodwill in its trademark both in Luxembourg and internationally. Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark was registered in bad faith. According to section 3.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, bad faith under the UDRP is broadly understood to occur where a respondent takes unfair advantage of or otherwise abuses a complainant’s mark. To facilitate assessment of whether this has occurred, and bearing in mind that the burden of proof rests with the complainant, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that any one of the following non-exclusive scenarios constitutes evidence of a respondent’s bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, 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’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location. In this regard, the Panel finds that the fourth of the above scenarios apply to the present case confirming the Respondent's bad faith. Both websites to which the disputed domain name has resolved have illustrated an underlying intent of the Respondent to profit from the misdirection of Internet users. Further, the change in use is also indicative that the Respondent had no good faith explanation for its registration of the disputed domain name other than to benefit from the goodwill associated with the Complainant’s trademark. Moreover, the Respondent failed to respond to the Complainant’s cease and desist letters, and did not provide any good reason to justify this, which confirms the bad faith (see, e.g., Compagnie Generale des Etablissements Michelin v. Vaclav Novotny,WIPO Case No. D2009-1022). Considering the above the Panel finds the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Therefore, the Complainant has established its case under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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, Taras Kyslyy
Sole Panelist
Date: July 26, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy