The Complainant is Arcelormittal (SA), Luxembourg, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is Kateregga Robert, Corrugated Sheets Limited, Uganda. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 30, 2021. On July 1, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 2, 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 July 6, 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 July 7, 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 July 9, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 29, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 11, 2021. The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on August 18, 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 in the business of steel production. It owns the trademark ARCELORMITTAL and enjoys the benefit of a registration for that mark, International Trademark Registration No. 947686, which registered on August 3, 2007. The disputed domain name was registered on April 22, 2021. It resolves to a parking page that promotes and facilitates website hosting services. MX servers are configured for the disputed domain name. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (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 This element requires the Panel to consider two issues: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant mark; and, second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant owns registrations for the ARCELORMITTAL mark. The disputed domain name incorporates the ARCELORMITTAL mark in its entirety – this makes it confusingly similar to the mark in which the Complainant has rights. The additional letters “SA” and “LTD” appearing in the disputed domain name do not eliminate the confusing similarity. Accordingly, the Complainant has succeeded under this first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel evaluates this element of the Policy by first looking to see whether the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests shifts to the Respondent. The Complainant has established, prima facie, that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. On this point, the Complainant asserts that: - The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. - The Respondent 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 of the Complainant’s trademark ARCELORMITTAL, or register the disputed domain name. - The Respondent has no demonstrable plans to use the disputed domain name. These facts establish the Complainant’s prima facie showing. The Respondent has not provided any evidence or argument to rebut this prima facie showing. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established this second element under the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant asserts that the Respondent appears to be a competitor of the Complainant, selling various steel products. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark. This suggests bad faith registration. Bad faith use is shown from the Respondent’s activities of using the disputed domain name to present a website promoting services, presumably for commercial gain. Finally, the establishment of MX records for the disputed domain name suggests the disputed domain name may be used to send emails. The Panel cannot envision any reason for the Respondent to send emails using email addresses associated with the disputed domain name other than to act in bad faith. For these reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has successfully met this third element. 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 Evan D. Brown
Sole Panelist
Date: September 1, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy