WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Arcelormittal (SA) v. Rodrigues Carolina, Privacy Limited

Case No. D2018-0968

1. The Parties

Complainant is Arcelormittal (SA) of Luxembourg, Luxembourg, represented by Nameshield, France.

Respondent is Rodrigues Carolina, Privacy Limited of Belize City, Belize.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <arcelormittel.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with EuroDNS S.A. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 2, 2018. On May 2, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On May 3, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 14, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 3, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on June 4, 2018.

The Center appointed Clive L. Elliott Q.C. as the sole panelist in this matter on June 13, 2018. 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

Complainant is a large steel producing company. It produces steel for use in automotive, construction, household appliances and packaging, with operations in more than 60 countries. It operates extensive distribution networks.

Complainant is the owner of the international trade mark ARCELORMITTAL (“Complainant’s Trade Mark”), registration no. 947686, registered on August 3, 2007.

According to WhoIs the Domain Name was registered on July 9, 2008. According to the evidence in the Complaint, the Domain Name resolves to a website displaying a parking page with pay-per-click links and offering the Domain Name for sale.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts that it owns a portfolio of domain names, many of which include the “arcelormittal” wording, such as the domain name <arcelormittal.com> registered and used since January 27, 2006.

Complainant contends that the term “arcelormittal” has no other meaning or translation, neither in English nor in French, and notes that all the results on Google of this term are related to Complainant.

Complainant states that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trade Mark as it contains Complainant’s Trade Mark in its entirety with the exception of a spelling variation where the second to last letter has been changed from the letter “a” to the letter “e”. Complainant submits that this is a case of typosquatting by Respondent as the Domain Name contains an obvious misspelling of Complainant’s Trade Mark.

Complainant further contends that Respondent is not known as “Arcelormittal”, but as “Privacy Limited”, and has not acquired trade mark rights on this term.

Complainant contends that Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by Complainant in any way, nor does Respondent have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and nor does Complainant carry out any activity for, or any business with, Respondent.

Complainant claims that the website in relation to the Domain Name displays the message “The domain arcelormittel.com is for sale”, and that it is also available in the domain marketplace SEDO.

Complainant contends that Complainant’s Trade Mark is widely known, and given the distinctiveness of Complainant’s Trade Mark and reputation, points out that it is reasonable to infer that Respondent has registered the Domain Name with full knowledge of Complainant’s Trade Mark.

Complainant notes that the Domain Name is on a parking page with pay-per-click links, and therefore suggests that Respondent is trying to benefit from Complainant’s Trade Mark and has registered the Domain Name in bad faith. Complainant contends Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established to the satisfaction of the Panel that Complainant’s Trade Mark has been used in relation to Complainant’s steel production activities and that Complainant has registered Complainant’s Trade Mark.

Complainant contends that the Domain Name reproduces Complainant’s Trade Mark in its entirety with the exception of a spelling variation where the second to last letter has been changed from the letter “a” to the letter “e”. The Panel accepts Complainant’s submission that this amounts to typosquatting by Respondent as the Domain Name contains an obvious misspelling of Complainant’s Trade Mark. There is clear merit in these submissions and in the absence of any attempt to refute them it is found that:

a) Complainant has rights in respect of Complainant’s Trade Mark.

b) The Domain Name is almost identical to Complainant’s Trade Mark.

Accordingly, the Panel is satisfied that the first element of the Policy has been met.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

In terms of whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is available for sale and resolves to a parking page with pay-per-click links. This allows the inference to be drawn that the Domain Name is being used to attract Internet users to a website, thereby misleading consumers or potential consumers as to the Domain Name and affiliation of Respondent with or to Complainant.

Such conduct is not legitimate. It is found that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

The Panel is satisfied that the second element of the Policy has been met.

C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith

Given Complainant’s use and registration of Complainant’s Trade Mark, the Panel infers that Respondent knew of Complainant’s Trade Mark when registering the Domain Name and participating in or benefiting from a click-through business by reference to Complainant’s Trade Mark in the manner described above.

The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name for purpose of making a commercial gain and that Internet users might wrongly believe that the Domain Name is associated with Complainant or is otherwise endorsed by Complainant, when this is not the case.

The Panel thus finds that the third element of the Policy has been met.

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 <arcelormittel.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Clive L. Elliott Q.C.
Sole Panelist
Date: July 5, 2018