The Complainant is Arcelormittal, Luxembourg, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is Samira Mousavi, Iran (Islamic Republic of). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name, The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 21, 2021. On April 21, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to IRNIC a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On April 24, 2021, IRNIC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “irDRP”), the Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 28, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 18, 2021. On May 19, 2021, the Center notified the Respondent’s default. The Center appointed Tony Willoughby as the sole panelist in this matter on June 3, 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 major global steel and mining company with its headquarters in Luxembourg. It is the registered proprietor of International Trademark Registration No. 947686 ARCELORMITTAL (word) registered on August 3, 2007 covering numerous goods and services in classes 6, 7, 9, 12, 19, 21, 39, 40, 41 and 42. The Complainant operates a website connected to its domain name, The Domain Name was registered on April 10, 2021 and is connected to a webpage featuring the message “…Coming Soon…” and a digital clock (counting down) with an invitation to the visitor to subscribe and requiring entry of the visitor’s email address. An Instagram button opens to a form for the visitor’s name and address and for the posting of a message. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Essentially, the Complainant’s contention is that this is a typical case of typo-squatting. The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its ARCELORMITTAL registered trade mark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. General According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered or is being used in bad faith. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar While the Policy is not in all respects identical to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), the two policies are sufficiently similar for it to be useful to refer where appropriate to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is identical to paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP. The Domain Name comprises the name “arcelormetal” and the “.ir” country code Top-Level-Domain identifier. Section 1.7 of WIPO Overview 3.0 explains the test for identity or confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP and includes the following passage: “While each case is judged on its own merits, in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing.” The same is true of the position under the Policy. In this case, for the purposes of this element of the Policy, the names to be compared are “arcelormetal” from the Domain Name and the Complainant’s registered trade mark ARCELORMITTAL. The first eight letters and the last three letters in each name are identical. The intervening “e” in the Domain Name and the intervening “it” in the Complainant’s trade mark do not materially affect the overall close similarity of the names. In the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s registered trade mark is readily recognizable in the Domain Name. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant contends that it has no association with the Respondent and has given the Respondent no permission to use its ARCELORMITTAL trade mark. The unchallenged evidence of the Complainant (Annex 5 of the Complaint) is that at the time of the Complaint the Domain Name pointed to “a template shop ‘FB-TECH’”. Currently, as indicated in section 4 above, it is connected to a webpage featuring the message “…Coming Soon…” and a digital clock (counting down) with an invitation to the visitor to subscribe and requiring entry of the visitor’s email address. The Complainant contends that its registered trade mark is distinctive and that the Respondent’s selection of the Domain Name, which is so closely similar to the trade mark and having no obvious connection with either the name of the Respondent or the uses to which the Domain Name has been put, cannot have been accidental. The Complainant contends that in selecting the Domain Name the Respondent was clearly targeting the Complainant’s well-known trade mark by way of typo-squatting and for commercial gain. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case under this element of the Policy; in other words, a case calling for an answer from the Respondent. In the absence of an answer from the Respondent the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. D. Registered or Used in Bad Faith The Panel agrees with the Complainant that more likely than not the Respondent registered the Domain Name with the Complainant’s trade mark in mind and with a view to diverting Internet users from the Complainant’s website at “www.arcelormittal.com” for commercial gain. The unchallenged evidence of the Complainant is that at the time of the Complaint the Domain Name pointed to an “FB-TECH” website. The exhibited screenshot of that website is in a language with which the Panel is unfamiliar, but the “FB-TECH” logo appearing towards the top of the exhibit includes the name “WooCommerce”. The screenshot also feature further down the page in the English language “CASH ON DELIVERY” and the images of the well-known ‘VISA’, ‘MasterCard’ and ‘Maestro’ payment options. The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith as contended for by the Complainant. The Panel believes it likely that the current use of the Domain Name was introduced to deceive the Panel. The Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) 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 Domain Name Tony Willoughby
Sole Panelist
Date: June 3, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy