The Complainant is Arcelormittal (SA), Luxembourg, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is ZengYan（曾燕）, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 29, 2021. On June 29, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 30, 2021, 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. On July 1, 2021, the Center transmitted an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant submitted the request that English be the language of the proceeding on July 1, 2021. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding. 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 in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 14, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 3, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 4, 2021. The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on August 17, 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 a company specialized in steel production and is a leader in steel for use in automotive, construction, household appliances and packaging. It holds captive supplies of raw materials and operates extensive distribution networks. The Complainant is the owner of the following trade mark registration for ARCELORMITTAL: Trade Mark Registration Number Registration Date Class Jurisdiction ARCELORMITTAL 947686 August 3, 2007 6, 7, 9, 12, 19, 21, 39, 40, 41, 42 International (designating China) The disputed domain name The Complainant contends that: (a) The disputed domain name is identical to its registered trade mark other than the country code Top Level Domain (“ccTLD”), which in any event should be disregarded; (b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has never granted the Respondent any authorisation or license to use the Complainant’s trade mark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name; and (c) The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trade mark and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trade mark. It is not possible to conceive of any use of the disputed domain name that would not be illegitimate. 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 6.1. Preliminary Issues – Language of the Proceeding According to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding. In this case, the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is in Chinese. Based on the given evidence, there is no agreement between the Complainant and the Respondent regarding the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not respond as to the language of the proceeding. The Complainant has filed its Complaint in English and has requested that English be the language for the proceeding under the following grounds: a) the English language is the language used most in international relations and is one of the working languages of the Center; b) the disputed domain name is formed by Roman characters and not Chinese script; and c) in order to proceed in Chinese, the Complainant would have had to retain specialised translation services that would cause an unnecessary burden to the Complainant and delay the proceeding. In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the Panel hereby determines that the language of the proceeding shall be in English after considering the above matters and the following circumstances: - the Center has notified the Respondent of the proceeding in both English and Chinese. Further, this Panel decided in Zappos.com, Inc. v. Zufu aka Huahaotrade,WIPO Case No. D2008-1191, that a respondent’s failure to respond to a preliminary determination by the Center as to the language of the proceeding “should, in general, be a strong factor to allow the Panel to decide to proceed in favour of the language of the Complaint”. 6.2. Substantive Issues The Complainant must satisfy all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to succeed in its action: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights to; The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trade mark ARCELORMITTAL. The ccTLD is generally disregarded when considering the first element. (See section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)) The Complainant has therefore satisfied the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent has not asserted any rights or legitimate interests in relation to the disputed domain name. Section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 provides: “While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of ‘proving a negative’, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.” The Complainant has asserted that the Respondent has no business with and is in no way affiliated with the Complainant. The Respondent is not authorised nor licensed to use the Complainant’s trade mark or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. There is also no other evidence that the Respondent has used or is planning to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services. In addition, the Respondent has not responded to any of the Complainant’s contentions. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, which has not been rebutted by the Respondent. Accordingly, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in regard to the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Based on the given evidence, the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name was registered long after the Complainant has registered ARCELORMITTAL as a trade mark. The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name. It also appears to the Panel that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name for commercial gain in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The links to other companies on the parking page establish the Respondent is making (or seeking to make) a commercial gain from the website by attracting users to generate click through revenue. For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant has therefore satisfied the third element under paragraph 4(a) 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 Douglas Clark
- the Respondent has not commented on the language of the proceeding.
- an order for the translation of the Complaint and other supporting documents will result in significant expenses for the Complainant and a delay in the proceeding.
(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
Sole Panelist
Date: August 29, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy