According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy the Complainant is required to prove each of the following three elements to obtain the transfer or the revocation of the disputed domain name:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
I. RIGHTS AND IDENTITY OR CONFUSING SIMILARITY
The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark ARCELORMITTAL since 2007. The trademark of the Complainant was registered prior to the registration of the disputed domain name (November 4, 2018) and is valid and well-known worldwide, comprising the territory where the Respondent is located (UK).
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark because it wholly incorporates (the distinctive part of such mark, namely the wording ARCELORMITTAL. The addition of the letter "N" to the Complainant's registered and well-known mark neither affects the attractive power of such trademark, nor is sufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant's mark.
UDRP Panels consider that a domain name consisting of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element of the Policy (so called typosquatting). Examples of such typos include (i) adjacent keyboard letters, (ii) substitution of similar-appearing characters (e.g., upper vs lower-case letters or numbers used to look like letters), (iii) the use of different letters that appear similar in different fonts, (iv) the use of non-Latin internationalized or accented characters, (v) the inversion of letters and numbers, or (vi) the addition or interspersion of other terms or numbers (see paragraph 1.9 WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition “WIPO Overview 3.0” and the decisions mentioned thereto).
UDRP Panels also agree that the top-level suffix, in this case .com, is usually to be ignored for the purpose of determination of identity or confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademark of the Complainant as it is a technical requirement of registration (see paragraph 1.11.1 WIPO Overview 3.0 and the decisions mentioned thereto).
Hence, this Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark. The similarity of the disputed domain name to the Complainant's mark is likely to lead to confusion and/or association for the Internet users.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven the first element of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
II. LACK OF RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS
It is a consensus view of UDRP Panels that the Complainant shall establish a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name to shift the burden of proof to the Respondent (see paragraph 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and the decisions mentioned thereto: "[...] where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant 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 has no relationship with the Respondent whatsoever.
The Respondent has never received any approval of the Complainant, expressed or implied, to use the Complainant's trademark.
There is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name or has acquired any rights in a trademark or trade name corresponding to the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of the Complainant's well-known trademark and such practice evidences the Respondent's lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established its prima facie case and the Respondent, in not formally responding to the Complaint, has failed to invoke any of the circumstances, which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Thus, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has met the second requirement of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
III. BAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE
The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name containing in its entirety the well-known trademark of the Complainant (ARCELORMITTAL) and adding the letter "N", creating in such way a likelihood of confusion with such mark. Considering the notoriety of the Complainant's activities and its mark worldwide, it is unlikely that the registration of the disputed domain name may be attributed to a mere chance and not, as is, with a full awareness and intent to exploit the reputation of the Complainant and its mark acquired in these years. Moreover, the disputed domain name has not been actively used and resolves to a parking page.
The employment of an intentional misspelling during the registration by the Respondent corroborated by the non-use (passive holding) of the disputed domain name shows the intention of the Respondent to confuse Internet users seeking or expecting the Complainant.
Thus, by registering and (not) using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or a product or service on its website.
Taken into account all circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that it is implausible that there is any legitimate purpose in the registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent or any good faith use to which the disputed domain name might be put.
The Panel, thus, finds that the Complainant has discharged the burden of proof to show that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
|