WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Arcelormittal (SA) v. Anonymous Anonymous

Case No. DCO2021-0069

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Anonymous Anonymous, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <arcelormittal.net.co> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 24, 2021. On August 24, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 25, 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 August 26, 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 August 26, 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 September 1, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 21, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any Response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 18, 2021.

The Center appointed Debrett G. Lyons as the sole panelist in this matter on November 5, 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

The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that:

(1) the Complainant is one of the largest steel producer in the world and is the owner of International Trademark no. 947686, registered on August 3, 2007, for the trade mark, ARCELORMITTAL (the “Trade Mark”)1;

(2) the disputed domain name was registered on July 15, 2021 and has not been used; and

(3) there is no commercial or other relationship between the Parties and the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the Trade Mark or to register any domain name incorporating the Trade Mark.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts trade mark rights in ARCELORMITTAL. It holds an International registration for the Trade Mark and submits that the disputed domain name is identical to the Trade Mark.

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because it has no trade mark rights; is not known by the disputed domain name; and the disputed domain name has not been used.

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith having targeted the Complainant’s business.

The Complainant accordingly requests the Panel to order transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not submit a Response.

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:

(i) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

It is the responsibility of the Panel to consider whether the requirements of the Policy have been met, regardless of the fact that the Respondent failed to submit a response. Having considered the Complaint and the available evidence, the Panel finds the following:

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry – a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trade mark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark.

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trade mark rights. It is accepted that a trade mark registered with a national authority is evidence of trade mark rights for the purposes of the Policy.2 The Complainant provides evidence of its International registration of the Trade Mark and so the Panel finds that the Complainant has trade mark rights.

The disputed domain name takes the Trade Mark and merely adds the country code second level domain, “.net.co” which can be disregarded for the purposes of comparing the disputed domain name with the Trade Mark.3 The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Trade Mark and so finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has the burden to establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Nevertheless, it is well settled that the Complainant need only make out a prima facie case, after which the onus shifts to the Respondent to rebut such prima facie case by providing evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.4

Notwithstanding the lack of a response to the Complaint, paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any 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 rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

“(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”.

In consequence of these administrative proceedings, the Registrar disclosed the name of the underlying domain name registrant as “Anonymous Anonymous”, which does not suggest that the Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel finds no other evidence that the Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name.

Further, the Complainant states that there is no association between the Parties and there is nothing to contradict that claim. There is no evidence that the Respondent has any trade mark rights.

The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website and there is no other evidence of its use.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name,5 and that the Respondent in failing to reply to the Complainant’s contentions has not rebutted such prima facie case.

The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and so the Complainant has satisfied the second element of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out circumstances which shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. They are:

“(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 none of those scenarios has application to the facts. Instead, the Panel finds registration in bad faith and use in bad faith as separate matters. The Panel has already found the disputed domain name to be identical to the Trade Mark. The Trade Mark is distinctive and absent a Response, the Panel finds no reason to think that the Respondent had a bona fide reason to register the domain name. The Panel finds registration in bad faith, which leaves to be considered use in bad faith where there is no use. The Panel refers to the reasoning first laid out in the case of Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. The panel there posed the question: “what circumstances of inaction (passive holding) other than those identified in paragraphs 4(b)(i), (ii) and (iii) can constitute a domain name being used in bad faith?”, concluding that “the question can only be answered in respect of the particular facts of a specific case”, whereafter the panel paid regard to circumstances showing that (i) the complainant’s trademark was widely known, (ii) the respondent had provided no evidence of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the domain name, (iii) the respondent has taken active steps to conceal its identity and had provided false contact details, and (iv) it was not possible to conceive of any plausible use of the domain name by the respondent that would not be illegitimate in the sense of infringing complainant’s rights.

The circumstances largely coincide. In particular, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s evidence that the Trade Mark is well known. It coincides with the Complainant’s corporate name and since 2006 the Complainant has become one of the largest steel manufacturer in North America, South America, and in Europe. It manufactures steel in 17 countries, has customers in 160 countries, and in 2020 employed 168,000 people.

There is more than enough in this Panel’s assessment to draw a finding of passive holding and “use” in bad faith following the decision in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, supra.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the third and final element 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.net.co> be transferred to the Complainant.

Debrett G. Lyons
Sole Panelist
Date: November 19, 2021


1 The Trade Mark is registered in the slightly stylised form, “ArcelorMittal”, but the Panel finds that this has no bearing on the paragraph 4(a)(i) analysis or the Decision in this case.

2 See section 1.2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

3 See section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

4 See, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000-0624.

5 See, for example, The Boeing Company v. Nicola Bressi, WIPO Case No. D2000-1164.