WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Arcelormittal (SA) v. Rui Zhang

Case No. D2019-0501

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Rui Zhang of Luoyang, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <acerosmittal.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 5, 2019. On March 5, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On March 7, 2019, 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 March 7, 2019 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amended Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 8, 2019.

On March 7, 2019, the Center transmitted an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant requested that English be the language of the proceeding on March 8, 2019. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.

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 March 14, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 3, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 4, 2019.

The Center appointed Karen Fong as the sole panelist in this matter on April 18, 2019. 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 producing. It is one of the largest steel producing companies in the world and is one of the market leaders in steel for use in automotive, construction, household appliances and packaging with operations in more than 60 countries.

The Complainant is the owner of International Trade Mark No. 1198046 for MITTAL registered on December 5, 2013 and the European Union Trade Mark 4233301 for MITTAL STEEL registered on March 27, 2006 (the “Trade Marks”).

The Complainant also owns a domain names portfolio which incorporates the Trade Marks including <mittalsteel.com> and <arcelormittal.com>. The Complainant’s main website is found at “www.arcelormittal.com”.

The Respondent who appears to be based in China registered the Domain Name on February 28, 2019. The Domain Name is not connected to an active website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Marks, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Name, and that the Domain Name was registered and being used in bad faith. The Complainant requests transfer of the Domain Name.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1 Language of the Proceeding

The Rules, paragraph 11, provide that unless otherwise agreed by the parties or specified otherwise in the registration agreement between the respondent and the registrar in relation to the disputed domain name, the language of the 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. According to the information received from the Registrar, the language of the registration agreement for the Domain Names is Chinese.

The Complainant submits that the language of the proceeding should be English for the following reasons:

(a) The Domain Name is made up of words in Roman characters and not in Chinese script;

(b) English is the language most widely used in international relations;

(c) The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Marks;

(d) If the proceeding is in Chinese, the Complainant would have to incur translation costs which probably will be higher than the overall costs of this proceeding which would impose a burden on the Complainant which is not commiserate with the low costs of this proceeding.

In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the Registration Agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both Parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the Parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs.

The Panel accepts the Complainant’s request regarding the language of the proceeding. The Respondent has not challenged the Complainant’s request and in fact has failed to file a Response. The Panel is also mindful of the need to ensure the proceeding is conducted in a timely and cost-effective manner. In this case, the Complainant may be unduly disadvantaged by having to conduct the proceeding in Chinese. The Panel notes that all of the communications from the Center to the Parties were transmitted in both Chinese and English. In all the circumstances, the Panel determines that English be the language of the proceeding.

6.2 Substantive Matters

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 was registered and being used in bad faith.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established that it has rights to the distinctive Trade Marks. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the trade mark and the domain name to determine whether the domain name is confusingly similar to the trade mark. The test involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trade mark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the domain name.

In this case the Domain Name contain one of the Trade Marks “MITTAL” in its entirety with the prefix “ACEROS” which means “Steels” in Spanish. The addition of the descriptive term which when translated into English becomes “STEELS MITTAL”, an inversion of the “MITTAL STEEL” Trade Mark. This addition encourages rather than negates the confusing similarity encouraged by the Respondent’s complete integration of the Trade Marks in the Domain Name. See, N.V. Organon Corp. v. Vitalline Trading Ltd., Dragic Veselin / PrivacyProtect.org, WIPO Case No. D2011-0260; Oakley, Inc. v. Wu bingjie aka bingjie wu/Whois Privacy Protection Service, WIPO Case No. D2010-0093; X-ONE B.V. v. Robert Modic, WIPO Case No. D2010-0207. For the purposes of assessing identity and confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) which in this case is “.com”. It is viewed as a standard registration requirement (section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)).

The Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to trade marks in which the Complainant has rights and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy therefore are fulfilled.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, a respondent may establish rights to or legitimate interests in a domain name by demonstrating any of the following:

(i) before any notice to it of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) the respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, even if it has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or

(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain, to misleadingly divert consumers.

Although the Policy addresses ways in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name, it is well established that, as it is put in section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, that a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Once such prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or 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 submits that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name or any name that incorporates the Trade Marks. The Complainant has not licensed, authorized or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Trade Marks or apply for any domain name that incorporates the Trade Marks. As the Domain Name does not resolve to any active website, there is no evidence of any use or demonstrable preparation to use the Domain Name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial fair use under the Policy.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case, a case calling for an answer from the Respondent. The Respondent has not provided any reasons why it chose to register the Domain Name comprising trade marks with which it has no connection. The Panel is unable to conceive of any basis upon which the Respondent could sensibly be said to have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

To succeed under the Policy, the Complainant must show that the Domain Name has been both registered and used in bad faith. It is a double requirement.

The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent must have been aware of the Trade Marks when it registered the Domain Name. It is implausible that it was unaware of the Complainant when it registered the Domain Name especially since the Trade Marks are well known and is in fact a misspelling of the Complainant’s corporate name “Arcelormittal” and official website domain name <arcelormittal.com>.

In the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2 states as follows:

“Noting the near instantaneous and global reach of the Internet and search engines, and particularly in circumstances where the complainant’s mark is widely known (including in its sector) or highly specific and a respondent cannot credibly claim to have been unaware of the mark (particularly in the case of domainers), panels have been prepared to infer that the respondent knew, or have found that the respondent should have known, that its registration would be identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark. Further factors including the nature of the domain name, the chosen top-level domain, any use of the domain name, or any respondent pattern, may obviate a respondent’s claim not to have been aware of the complainant’s mark.”

The fact that there is a clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no explanation for the Respondent’s choice of the Domain Name is also a significant factor to consider (as stated in section 3.2.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0). In light of the above, the Panel finds that registration is in bad faith.

The Domain Name resolves to an inactive website. This does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the “passive holding” principles which are laid out in section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. In this case the totality of the circumstances to be considered include the fame of the Trade Marks, the misspelling of the Complainant’s corporate name and domain name of its website, the failure of the Respondent to submit a Response in this proceeding and the implausibility of any good faith use for which the Domain Name can be put to.

From the above, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith and the Complainant has succeeded in proving the third element.

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 <acerosmittal.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Karen Fong
Sole Panelist
Date: May 3, 2019