REQUIREMENTS OF PARAGRAPH 4(A) OF THE POLICY
According to Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy the Complainant shall prove each of the following three elements to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name:
1. the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
2. the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
3. 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 (October, 16 2019) and is valid and well-known worldwide, comprising the territory where the Respondent is located (USA).
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 letters "L" and "T" 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. The Complainant is often victim of typosquatting (see CAC Cases no. 102608, 102539, 102360).
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 Respondent was identified by the registrar with the name <damendes>, located in the USA.
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 or to register the disputed domain name.
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, aimed to take advantage of the Internet users' typographical errors, evidences the Respondent's lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Moreover, the Respondent has been using the disputed domain name for sending e-mails, passing itself off as an employee of a division of the Complainant, in order to receive payments in place of the Complainant. Such use is certainly not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
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 letters "L" and "T", 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, on one hand the website associated to the disputed domain name is inactive, on the other hand the disputed domain name has been used in a phishing scheme. There is sufficient proof provided by the Complainant that the Respondent has been using the disputed domain name for sending e-mails, passing itself off as an employee of a division of the Complainant, in order to receive payments in place of the Complainant.
The employment of an intentional misspelling during the registration by the Respondent corroborated by the use of the disputed domain name for phishing activities shows the intention of the Respondent to confuse Internet users seeking or expecting the Complainant.
Thus, by registering and 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 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).
|