WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

ArcelorMittal (Société Anonyme) v. Whois Privacy Protection Foundation / Sivian Menier

Case No. D2021-0078

1. The Parties

The Complainant is ArcelorMittal (Société Anonyme), Luxembourg, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Whois Privacy Protection Foundation, Netherlands / Sivian Menier, United Kingdom.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <arcelormittal-gestion.com> is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Openprovider (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 12, 2021. On January 12, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 13, 2021, 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 January 13, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on January 21, 2021.

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 January 22, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 11, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 12, 2021.

The Center appointed Cherise Valles as the sole panelist in this matter on February 19, 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

ArcelorMittal (Société Anonyme) (“Complainant”), is the owner of trademark registrations in various jurisdictions, including the Benelux Office of Intellectual Property (“BOIP”), the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), IP Australia and the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (“CIPO”) for these registrations. The Complainant has spent time and money protecting its intellectual property rights. These registrations are referred to hereafter as the “Complainant’s Marks.”

The trademarks relevant to this instant matter are:

Trademark

Jurisdiction/
TM Office

Registration Number

Registration Date

Class

ARCELORMITTAL

BOIP

0824918

June 18, 2007

06, 07, 09, 12,
19, 21, 39, 40,
41, 42

ARCELORMITTAL

BOIP

0827145

July 25,2007

06, 07, 09, 12,
19, 21, 39, 40,
41, 42

ARCELORMITTAL

WIPO

947686

August 3,2007

06, 07, 09, 12,
19, 21, 39, 40,
41, 42

ARCELORMITTAL

US / USPTO

3643643

June 23, 2009

06, 39, 40, 41, 42

ARCELORMITTAL

AU / IP Australia

1282928

September 7, 2009

04, 37

ARCELORMITTAL

CA / CIPO

TMA783952

December 2, 2010

06, 07, 09, 12,
19, 21, 35, 37,
39, 40, 41, 42

By way of background, Arcelor was created in February 2002 through the merger of Arbed (Luxembourg) founded in 1911, Aceralia (Spain) and Usinor (France). Arcelor had major steel production facilities in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Brazil and Argentina, and controlling interests in plants in Brazil, Poland, Morocco and Canada. In 2006, Arcelor merged with Mittal Steel Technologies to become ArcelorMittal, the Complainant in this matter. It is currently one of the world’s leading steel and mining companies. The company is headquartered in Luxembourg, and is the largest steel producer, manufacturing steel in 18 countries around the world. In 2019, ArcelorMittal produced over 89 million tons of crude steel globally. ArcelorMittal employs over 191,000 employees globally, serving customers in 160 countries.

ArcelorMittal is listed as MT on the stock exchanges of New York, Amsterdam, Paris, Luxembourg and as MTS on the stock exchanges of Barcelona, Bilbao, Madrid and Valencia, in Spain. ArcelorMittal is also a member of more than 120 indices, including: EURO STOXX 50, CAC40, AEX, FTSE Eurotop 100, MSCI Pan-Euro, DJ Stoxx 600, S&P Europe 500, Bloomberg World Index, IBEX 35 index and NYSE Composite Index.

ArcelorMittal has received various awards and recognitions in the industry. In 2018, ArcelorMittal was ranked the largest steelmaker in the world by The World Steel Association, with crude steel production of 96.4 million tons. In 2019 Forbes, ArcelorMittal was ranked #303 for World’s Best Employers, #195 in Global 2000 and #254 in America’s Best Employers.

ArcelorMittal has a large Internet presence and shares information about its products, services and news on its website “www.arcelormittal.com”. According to Similarweb.com, ArcelorMittal’s website at its primary domain name <arcelormittal.com> has received over 457’000 visitors during the most recent 6-month period between September 2019 to February 2020, and is ranked 16’461 in France and 87’403 globally.

The disputed domain name <arcelormittal-gestion.com> was registered on October 15, 2020, and used to resolve to a copycat website referring to the Complainant’s services. The disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts that each of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and the corresponding provisions in the Rules have been satisfied. In particular, the Complainant asserts that:

The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

- The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered ARCELORMITTAL trademarks, in light of the fact that it wholly incorporates the Complainant’s mark.

The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

- The Complainant states that the Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has never licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademarks or to register any domain name that included its trademarks.

The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

- The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The mere fact of registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar or identical to a famous trademark by an entity that has no relationship to that mark is itself evidence of bad faith registration and use. Furthermore, the Respondent’s fraudulent use of the disputed domain name is clear evidence of bad faith.

The Complainant requests the Panel to issue a decision finding that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant, in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides specific remedies to trademark owners against registrants of domain names where the owner of the mark (a complainant) establishes each of the following elements:

(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the complainant has rights;

(ii) the 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.

The Complainant has the burden of proof in establishing each of these elements.

The Respondent has failed to file a Response in this proceeding. The Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the available evidence submitted by the Complainant.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

To prove this element, the Complainant must have trademark rights and the disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

By virtue of its trademark and service mark registrations described above, the Complainant is the owner of the ARCELORMITTAL trademark. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) at section 1.2.1: “Where the complainant holds a nationally or regionally registered trademark or service mark, this prima facie satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case.”

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which it has rights. The disputed domain name incorporates the ARCELORMITTAL trademark in its entirety with the addition of the term “gestion”. Given the Complainant’s trademark registration as detailed above, the Complainant has established its trademark rights for ARCELORMITTAL for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

In creating the disputed domain name, the Respondent has added the descriptive term “gestion” to the Complainant’s ARCELORMITTAL trademark. The term “gestion” – means “management” in French. As a large corporation, ArcelorMittal manages a world-leading steel production and manufacturing company – the term is therefore very relevant. In addition, the Complainant hosts a website for its French-speaking market, where it provides information about its products and management.

It is standard practice when comparing a disputed domain name to a complainant’s trademark not to take the extension into account. See WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 1.11.1, which states that the “applicable Top Level Domain (‘TLD’) in a domain name (e.g., ‘.com’, ‘.club’, ‘.nyc’) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and, as such, is disregarded under the first element of the confusing similarity test”.

Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a disputed domain name that consists merely of a complainant’s trademark and an additional term that closely relates to and describes that complainant’s business is confusingly similar to that complainant’s trademarks. The WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 1.8 states that “Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element”. See also Arcelormittal (SA) v. Admin Contact, PrivateName Services Inc. / Juan Jose, WIPO Case No. D2019-0145, which found that the addition of the word “acero”, which means “steel” in Spanish, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.

The Respondent’s addition of a hyphen does not prevent the Complainant’s trademarks from being recognizable within the disputed domain name. The use of the hyphen is, therefore, disregarded for purposes of making a determination of confusing similarity. See Chernow Communications, Inc. v. Jonathan D. Kimball, WIPO Case No. D2000-0119, which held “that the use or absence of punctuation marks, such as hyphens, does not alter the fact that a name is identical to a mark”.

In addition, the Respondent’s previous use of the disputed domain name contributed to the confusion. The Respondent was using the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant, which suggests that the Respondent intended the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark as a means of furthering consumer confusion. Although the content is usually disregarded under the first element of the UDRP, the WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 1.15recognizes that“panels have however taken note of the content of the website associated with a domain name to confirm confusing similarity whereby it appears prima facie that the respondent seeks to target a trademark through the disputed domain name”. As a result, the Respondent’s previous use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that copied the look and feel of the Complainant’s own website is further evidence that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. (Annex 3.1 to the Complaint shows an historical screenshot of the previous website using the disputed domain name).

In light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name <arcelormittal-gestion.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark and that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy enumerates three non-exclusive ways in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name (with “you” referring to the respondent):

“[a]ny of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii):

(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your 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) you (as an individual, business or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.”

The Respondent did not submit a Response or attempt to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Panel draws inferences from this failure, where appropriate, in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 14(b).

Previous UDRP panels have held that the complainant must establish a prima facie case that respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to shift the burden of production to respondent. See The American Automobile Association, Inc. v. PrivacyProtect.org/ Domain Tech Enterprises/ and The American Automobile Association, Inc. v. PrivacyProtect.org/Tarun Kumar and The American Automobile Association, Inc. v. Publishier LLC, WIPO Case No. D2011-2202, noting that a complainant need only show a prima facie case that respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name in order to shift the burden of production to respondent. If the respondent fails to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or on any other basis, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on October 15, 2020, which is significantly after the Complainant filed for registration of its ARCELORMITTAL trademark with the BOIP, WIPO, USPTO, IP Australia and CIPO, significantly after the Complainant’s first use in commerce of its trademark in 2006, and significantly after the Complainant’s registration of its <arcelormittal.com> domain name on January 26, 2006. At the time of registration of the disputed domain name, therefore, the Respondent knew, or at least should have known, of the existence of the Complainant’s trademarks and that registration of domain names containing well-known trademarks may constitute bad faith. In addition to the numerous trademarks filed in connection with the Complainant’s business prior to the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, the Complainant was one of the world’s largest steel production and mining company, producing over 89 million tons of crude steel globally in 2019. Further, Internet searches across the three leading search engines for “Arcelor mining” returns multiple links referencing the Complainant and its business. See Caesar World, Inc. v. Forum LLC, WIPO Case No. D2005-0517, which stated that “given the Complainant’s worldwide reputation and presence on the Internet, indicates that Respondent was or should have been aware of the marks prior to registering the disputed Domain Name”.

The Complainant submits that there has never been any relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent. The Complainant has not given the Respondent permission to use the Complainant’s trademarks in any manner, including in domain names. Moreover, the Respondent is not licensed, or otherwise authorized, be it directly or indirectly, to register or use the Complainant’s ARCELORMITTAL trademarks in any manner whatsoever, including in, or as part of, the disputed domain name. “In the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use its trademark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the Disputed Domain Name could reasonably be claimed.” See Sportswear Company S.P.A. v. Tang Hong, WIPO Case No. D2014-1875.

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is unable to invoke any of the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy in order to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In particular, the Respondent cannot assert that, prior to any notice of this dispute, it was using, or had made demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services in accordance with paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.

In this proceeding, the WhoIs information identifies the Registrant as “REDACTED FOR PRIVACY / Whois Privacy Protection Foundation,” and the Registrar disclosed the Registrant as “Sivian Menier”, which does not resemble the disputed domain name in any manner. There is no evidence, including in the WhoIs record for the disputed domain name, which suggests that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Respondent cannot be regarded as having acquired rights to, or legitimate interests in, the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. See Moncler S.p.A. v. Bestinfo, WIPO Case No. D2004-1049, in which the panel noted “that the Respondent’s name is “Bestinfo” and that it can therefore not be “commonly known by the Domain Name” <moncler.com>”.

Furthermore, at the time of filing the Complaint, the Respondent was using a privacy WhoIs service, which previous UDRP panels have also found in certain circumstances to equate to a lack of legitimate interest. See Jackson National Life Insurance Company v. Private WhoIs wwwjacksonnationallife.com N4892, WIPO Case No. D2011-1855, in which the panel concluded that “the Respondent possesses no entitlement to use the name or the words in the Complainant’s marks and infers […] from the “Private Whois” registration that it is not known by such name. There is no evidence of the Respondent ever being commonly known by the name or words now included in the disputed domain name”.

The disputed domain name previously redirected Internet users to a website that copied and attempted to duplicate the Complainant’s official website by featuring the Complainant’s ARCELORMITTAL trademark and copying the Complainant’s logo, color scheme, and the general aesthetic of the Complainant’s website for the French market, at <france.arcelormittal.com>, as well as text therein. As such, the disputed domain name’s website appears to have been purposely designed to serve as an exact replica of the Complainant’s website, to convince Internet users that the disputed domain name and its website are associated with the Complainant.

The Respondent’s attempt to pass off the disputed domain name as being affiliated with the Complainant, and in fact as being the Complainant, is, in and of itself, evidence of the fact that the Respondent does not have rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See ArcelorMittal (Société Anonyme) v. El Manuel Es Pura Bellesa, Acero, WIPO Case No. D2020-0868, which found that “the Respondent attempted to deceive Internet users into believing that the disputed domain name and its website were associated with the Complainant. Such use does not confer any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name to the Respondent and does not serve as evidence of rights or legitimate interest”.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering, or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but rather that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a website that resolves to a blank page and lacks content. The Respondent has failed to make use of this disputed domain name and has not demonstrated any attempt to make legitimate use of the domain name, which evinces a lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as confirmed by many past UDRP panels. See ArcelorMittal (Société Anonyme) v. David Alonso Garcia Mendez, WIPO Case No. D2020-2382, which held that “[t]he current passive holding or non-use of the disputed domain name under these conditions does not establish any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name”.

In light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established an unrebutted prima facie case and concludes that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, shall be considered evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

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

(ii) the respondent has 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 the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct;

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

(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its 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 the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.

The term “bad faith” is “broadly understood to occur where a respondent takes unfair advantage of, or otherwise abuses, a complainant’s mark”. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.

The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and was being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists four factors which, in particular but without limitation, may be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy..

Previous UDRP panels have found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. UDRP panels have held that the “registration of a well-known trademark as a domain name is a clear indication of bad faith itself”. See The Gap, Inc. v. Deng Youqian, WIPO Case No. D2009-0113.

The Complainant and its ARCELORMITTAL trademark are known internationally, with trademark registrations in numerous countries. The Complainant has marketed and sold its goods and services using this trademark since 2006, which significantly predates the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name on October 15, 2020.

By registering a domain name that incorporates the Complainant’s ARCELORMITTAL trademark in its entirety, with the mere addition of the related French term “gestion” and a hyphen, the Respondent has created a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. As such, the Respondent has demonstrated a knowledge of, and familiarity with, the Complainant’s brand and business. Further, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to pass itself off as the Complainant by attempting to duplicate the Complainant’s website for the French market, including the Complainant’s ARCELORMITTAL trademark, website content, logos, design and colour aesthetic and the text therein. In light of the facts set forth in this Complaint, therefore, it is “not possible to conceive of a plausible situation in which the Respondent would have been unaware of” the Complainant’s brands at the time the Disputed Domain Name was registered. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. In other words, ARCELORMITTAL is so closely associated with the Complainant that the Respondent’s use of this mark, or any minor variation of it, strongly implies bad faith. As stated in Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas, WIPO Case No. D2000-0226, where a domain name is “so obviously connected with such a well-known name and products, (…) its very use by someone with no connection with the products suggests opportunistic bad faith.”

Further, where the disputed domain name incorporates the ARCELORMITTAL trademark in its entirety, with the mere addition of a hyphen and the related French term “gestion”, “it defies common sense to believe that Respondent coincidentally selected the precise domain without any knowledge of Complainant and its trademarks.” See Asian World of Martial Arts Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates, WIPO Case No. D2007-1415.

The Respondent’s previous use of the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark qualifies as bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b)(iv of the Policy because the Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks and the historical website at the disputed domain name was being used to impersonate the Complainant. Previous UDRP panels have confirmed that using a confusingly similar domain to mislead consumers and then offering a complainant’s goods or services is evidence of bad faith registration and use.

The disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website and is not being used. Previous UDRP panels have noted that the word bad faith “use” in the context of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy does not require a positive act on the part of the Respondent – instead, passively holding a domain name can constitute a factor in finding bad faith registration and use, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. See Telstra Corp. v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, which stated that “it is possible, in certain circumstances, for inactivity by the Respondent to amount to the domain name being used in bad faith”. In this case, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, and the Respondent is currently not making any use of the disputed domain name, which are factors to be take into account in assessing bad faith registration and use. See DCI S.A. v. Link Commercial Corp., WIPO Case No. D2000-1232, which concluded that the respondent’s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. (Annex 3.2 to the Complaint shows a screenshot of the disputed domain name’s current website.)

Furthermore, the Respondent, at the time of initial filing of the Complaint, had employed a privacy service to hide its identity, which previous UDRP panels have held serves as further evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG v. Domains by Proxy, Inc and Sabatino Andreoni, WIPO Case No. D2003-0230. See also WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 3.6 : “Panels have also viewed a respondent’s use of a privacy or proxy service which is known to block or intentionally delay disclosure of the identity of the actual underlying registrant as an indication of bad faith.”

The Respondent has ignored the Complainant’s attempts to resolve this dispute outside of this administrative proceeding. Previous UDRP panels have held that failure to respond to a cease-and-desist letter may properly be considered a factor in finding bad faith registration and use of a domain name. See Encyclopedia Britannica v. Zuccarini, WIPO Case No. D2000-0330, which held that failure to positively respond to a demand letter provides “strong support for a determination of ‘bad faith’ registration and use”. See also RRI Financial, Inc., v. Chen, WIPO Case No. D2001-1242, which found bad faith where “The Complainant alleges that it sent numerous cease and desist letters to [r]espondent without receiving a response”. (Annex 8 contains the cease and desist letters sent to the Respondent). In the light of the facts set out above, it is more likely than not that the Respondent knew of and targeted the Complainant’s trademark, and the Respondent should be found to have registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. See Tudor Games, Inc. v. Domain Hostmaster, Customer ID No. 09382953107339 dba Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd / Domain Administrator, Vertical Axis Inc., WIPO Case No. D2014-1754, in which the panel made its finding regarding bad faith registration “by asking whether it is more likely than not from the record of the evidence in the proceeding that Respondent had the ELECTRIC FOOTBALL trademark in mind when registering the Domain Name”.

Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has satisfied its burden of showing bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name under paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 disputed domain name <arcelormittal-gestion.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Cherise Valles
Sole Panelist
Date: March 7, 2021