WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Arcelormittal (SA) v. li du, du li

Case No. D2020-3450

1. The Parties

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

Respondent is li du, du li, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <mittalsteelbd.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Bizcn.com, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 17, 2020. On December 17, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On December 22, 2020, 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 Complainant on December 22, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint in English on December 22, 2020.

On December 22, 2020, the Center transmitted an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. Complainant confirmed the request that English be the language of the proceeding on December 22, 2020. 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 Respondent in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 12, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 1, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 9, 2021.

The Center appointed Kimberley Chen Nobles as the sole panelist in this matter on February 23, 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

Complainant specializes in steel production worldwide and provides steel for use in automotive, construction, household appliances and packaging with operations in more than 60 countries. It holds sizeable supplies of raw materials and operates extensive distribution networks.

Complainant owns several trademarks containing the term “mittal”, such as:

- International trademark No. 1198046 MITTAL (designating China) registered on December 5, 2013; and
- European Union trademark No. 4233301 MITTAL STEEL registered on March 27, 2006.

Complainant also owns a domain name portfolio, including the same distinctive wording “mittal”, such as the domain name <mittalsteel.com> registered since January 3, 2003.

Respondent registered the Domain Name on December 14, 2020. The Domain Name resolved to a website that features various commercial products, such as watches, for sale. At the time of the Decision, the Domain Name is inactive.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that (i) the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks; (ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name; and (iii) Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.

In particular, Complainant contends that it has trademark registrations for the MITTAL and MITTAL STEEL marks and owns many domain names incorporating the MITTAL and MITTAL STEEL marks. Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name, which incorporate Complainant’s MITTAL STEEL mark in its entirety, with an additional term of two letters “bd” in the Domain Name <mittalsteelbd.com>, to confuse Internet users looking for bona fide and well-known MITTAL STEEL products and services. Complainant contends that the added term “bd” stands for “Bangladesh”. Complainant notes that it has no affiliation with Respondent, nor authorized Respondent to register or use a domain name, which includes Complainant’s mark, and that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the registration and use of the Domain Name. Rather, Complainant contends that Respondent has acted in bad faith in acquiring and setting up the Domain Name, when Respondent clearly knew of Complainant’s rights.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1. Preliminary Procedural Issue – Language of the Proceeding

The Rules, in paragraph 11(a), 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.

Complainant submits in its communication to the Center on December 22, 2020 and in the Complaint that the language of the proceeding should be English. Complainant indicates that the Registration Agreement of the Domain Name is in Chinese. According to the information received from the Registrar, the language of the Registration Agreement of the Domain Name is in Chinese.

Complainant contends that the Domain Name was registered in characters using the Roman characters (ASCII) and not Chinese script. Complainant further contends that in order to proceed in Chinese, it would have to retain specialized and expensive translation services, and that it would be too cost-intensive and the proceeding would be unnecessarily delayed if the proceeding were to be held in Chinese.

In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the outstanding subject 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 Complainant’s submissions regarding the language of the proceeding. The Panel notes that in any case, all of the communications from the Center to the Parties were transmitted in both Chinese and English. Respondent chose not to respond to the Complaint or comment on the language of the proceeding. The Panel is also mindful of the need to ensure that the proceeding is conducted in a timely and cost-effective manner. Complainant may be unduly disadvantaged by having to conduct the proceeding in Chinese. Having considered all the circumstances of this case, the Panel determines that English is the language of the proceeding.

6.2. Substantive Issues

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed Complainant must satisfy the Panel that:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

Section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) states:

“Does a respondent’s default/failure to respond to the complainant’s contentions automatically result in the complaint succeeding?

Noting the burden of proof on the complainant, a respondent’s default (i.e., failure to submit a formal response) would not by itself mean that the complainant is deemed to have prevailed; a respondent’s default is not necessarily an admission that the complainant’s claims are true.”

Thus, although in this case Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint, the burden remains with Complainant to establish the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy by a preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., The Knot, Inc. v. In Knot We Trust LTD, WIPO Case No. D2006-0340.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. Complainant has provided evidence of its rights in the MITTAL STEEL marks, which have been registered since at least as early as 2006, well before Respondent registered the Domain Name on December 14, 2020 as noted above. Complainant has also submitted evidence, which supports that MITTAL STEEL is a widely known trademark and a distinctive identifier of Complainant’s products. Complainant has therefore proven that it has the requisite rights in the mark MITTAL STEEL. With Complainant’s rights in the MITTAL STEEL marks established, the remaining question under the first element of the Policy is whether the Domain Name, typically disregarding the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) in which it is registered (in this case, “.com”), is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See, e.g., B & H Foto & Electronics Corp. v. Domains by Proxy, Inc. / Joseph Gross, WIPO Case No. D2010-0842.

Here, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MITTAL STEEL trademark. This mark, which is fanciful and inherently distinctive, is completely incorporated in the Domain Name.

The addition of two letters “bd” in the Domain Name <mittalsteelbd.com> after the MITTAL STEEL mark in the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between Complainant’s trademark and the Domain Name registered by Respondent.

Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the first element 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 possesses no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. See, e.g., Malayan Banking Berhad v. Beauty, Success & Truth International, WIPO Case No. D2008-1393. Once a complainant makes such a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the respondent, though the burden of proof always remains on the complainant. If the respondent fails to come forward with evidence showing rights or legitimate interests, the complainant will have sustained its burden under the second element of the UDRP.

From the record in this case, it is evident that Respondent was, and is, aware of Complainant and the MITTAL STEEL marks, and does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Complainant has confirmed that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant, or otherwise authorized or licensed to use the MITTAL STEEL trademarks or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating the trademarks.

In addition, Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the evidence demonstrates that the Domain Name resolved to a website that features various commercial products, such as watches, for sale; and it is currently inactive. Such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use and cannot under the circumstances confer on Respondent any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. See, e.g., Intesa Sanpaolo S.p.A. v. Charles Duke / Oneandone Private Registration, WIPO Case No. D2013-0875. Moreover, there is no evidence showing that Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name.

Accordingly, Complainant has provided evidence supporting its prima facie claim that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent has failed to produce countervailing evidence of any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that Respondent’s actions indicate that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances indicating bad faith registration and use on the part of a domain name registrant, namely:

“(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.”

The Panel finds that Complainant provided ample evidence to show that registration and use of the MITTAL STEEL marks long predate the registration of the Domain Name by Respondent. Complainant is also well established and known worldwide, including China, where Respondent operates. Therefore, Respondent was likely aware of the MITTAL STEEL marks when he registered the Domain Name, or knew or should have known that the Domain Name was identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2; see also TTT Moneycorp Limited v. Privacy Gods / Privacy Gods Limited, WIPO Case No. D2016-1973.

Under the circumstances, Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name incorporating Complainant’s widely-known MITTAL STEEL trademark in its entirety with an additional term consisting of two letters “bd” as noted above, suggests that Respondent registered the Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the MITTAL STEEL mark, in an effort to opportunistically capitalize on the registration and use of the Domain Name.

The Panel therefore finds that Respondent’s awareness of Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of registration suggests bad faith. See Red Bull GmbH v. Credit du Léman SA, Jean-Denis Deletraz, WIPO Case No. D2011-2209; Nintendo of America Inc v. Marco Beijen, Beijen Consulting, Pokemon Fan Clubs Org., and Pokemon Fans Unite, WIPO Case No. D2001-1070, where POKÉMON was held to be a well-known mark of which the use by someone without any connection or legal relationship with the complainant suggested opportunistic bad faith.

As discussed above, the Domain Name resolved to a website that features various commercial products, such as watches, for sale. Therefore, the Panel finds that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his website. Although at the time of this Decision, the Domain Name is inactive, it does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3).

In addition to the circumstances referred to above, Respondent’s failure to file a response is further indicative of Respondent’s bad faith.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith and Complainant succeeds under the third element of paragraph 4(a) 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 <mittalsteelbd.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Kimberley Chen Nobles
Sole Panelist
Date: March 9, 2021