The Complainant is Arcelormittal (SA), Luxembourg, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is Name Redacted1.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 3, 2021. On August 3, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On August 4, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the 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 21, 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 August 23, 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 August 24, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 13, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 22, 2021.
The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on September 29, 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 BackgroundThe Complainant is a company specialized in steel producing and is the owner of the international trademark No. 947686 ARCELORMITTAL registered on August 3, 2007. It owns
The Domain Name was registered on July 28, 2021. The Domain Name does not resolve to an active site but has been configured for email use. The name of the Complainant’s CEO has been used falsely in the WhoIs contact details for the Domain Name.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant’s contentions can be summarised as follows:
The Complainant is the owner of the international trademark No. 947686 ARCELORMITTAL registered on August 3, 2007. It owns
The Domain Name registered in 2021 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark adding only the dictionary term “group” and the country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) “.co” which do not prevent said confusing similarity.
The Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant.
The Domain Name does not resolve to an active web site, but has been configured for email use which could be used for deceptive purposes. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation is bad faith per se.
The Domain Name has been registered falsely in the name of the Complainant’s CEO designed to suggest a link between the Complainant and the Domain Name which does not exist which is another indication of bad faith and shows the Respondent has actual knowledge of the Complainant and its rights and business.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Domain Name registered in 2021 consists of the Complainant’s ARCELORMITTAL mark (registered as an international trademark for steel production), the dictionary term “group” and the ccTLD “.co”.
Previous UDRP panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a dictionary term and a ccTLD to a Complainant’s trade mark. The Panel agrees that the addition of the dictionary word “group” and the ccTLD “.co” to the Complainant’s trade mark does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trade mark pursuant to the Policy.
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy with a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsThe Complainant has not authorised the use of its trade mark in the Domain Name. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the true Respondent (hiding behind false use of the name of the Complainant’s CEO in the WhoIs register) is commonly known by the Domain Name.
There has been no use of the Domain Name and so no bona fide offering of goods or services. Nor has there been any noncommercial legitimate or fair use made of the Domain Name.
As such the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithThe Respondent has not answered this Complaint or explained why it should be allowed to register a domain name containing a sign confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark which is recognised for steel production and is highly distinctive for the same. The false use of the name of the Complainant’s CEO in the WhoIs database indicates the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant and its rights and business and is a clear indication of bad faith.
The overriding objective of the Policy is to curb the abusive registration of domain names in circumstances where the registrant seeks to profit from or exploit the trade mark of another. Passive holding of a domain name containing a mark with a reputation can be bad faith registration and use. See Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.
As such, the Panel holds that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy.
7. DecisionFor the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name
Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: September 29, 2021
1 The name of the Complainant’s CEO has been used falsely in the WhoIs contact details for the Domain Name