ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Arcelormittal (SA) v. Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Billy willy, ArcelorMittal BE Group SSC AB Case No. DCO2022-0052 1. The Parties The Complainant is Arcelormittal (SA), Luxembourg, represented by Nameshield, France. The Respondent is Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Billy willy, ArcelorMittal BE Group SSC AB, Sweden. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name
is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on July 4, 2022. On July 4, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 4, 2022, 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 4, 2022 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 5, 2022. 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 5, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 25, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on July 28, 2022. page 2 The Center appointed Nayiri Boghossian as the sole panelist in this matter on August 2, 2022. 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 leading steel producing company and owns International trademark registration No. 947686 registered on August 3, 2007 for ARCELORMITTAL. The disputed domain name was registered on June 30, 2022 and resolves to a parked webpage hosting pay-per-click ("PPC") sponsored links. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark ARCELORMITTAL as it incorporates it in its entirety. The use of the term "group" does not eliminate confusing similarity as it does not change the overall impression that the domain name creates of being connected to the Complainant's trademark. The addition of the country code Top-Level Domain ("ccTLD") ".co" is irrelevant in determining confusing similarity as it is a standard registration requirement. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant nor is he authorized by the Complainant to use its trademark nor is he a licensee. The disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links, which cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent knew of the Complainant's trademark, which is considered well-known by prior panels. The disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with commercial links, which is an attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant owns trademark registrations for ARCELORMITTAL. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established its ownership of the trademark ARCELORMITTAL. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademark ARCELORMITTAL in its entirety. The use of the term "group" does not eliminate confusing similarity because the Complainant's trademark remains recognizable in the disputed domain name. The ccTLD ".co" is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element of confusing similarity test. page 3 Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant must make at least a prima facie showing that a respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such showing is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent. In the instant case, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not authorized by the Complainant to use its trademark. Therefore, the Complainant has established a prima facie case and the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests. Panels have found that the use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant's mark. As per the material submitted by the Complainant, the website contains a variety of PPC links. In Legacy Health System v. Nijat Hassanov, WIPO Case No. D2008-1708, it was found that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests as "the sole purpose of the disputed domain name is to resolve to payper-click advertising websites and collect click-through revenue from advertising links. Such use demonstrates that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to derive a commercial benefit. There is no indication on the website that the Respondent has made a bona fide use of the disputed domain name". The Respondent has not provided any evidence to show that it has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant's trademark as ARCELORMITTAL is a wellknown trademark. The disputed domain name resolves to a parked page with sponsored links. Such use here constitutes bad faith. In Mpire Corporation v. Michael Frey, WIPO Case No. D2009-0258 the panel found that "While the intention to earn click-through-revenue is not in itself illegitimate, the use of a domain name that is deceptively similar to a trademark to obtain click-through-revenue is found to be bad faith use". Such conduct of using a domain name, to attract Internet users for commercial gain, would fall squarely within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Given the above, the Panel believes that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to trade off the reputation of the Complainant's trademark. Furthermore, the Respondent's use of a privacy service in the above circumstances supports an inference of bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied 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 be transferred to the Complainant. /Nayiri Boghossian/ Nayiri Boghossian Sole Panelist Date: August 5, 2022
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy