ARCELORMITTAL v. Long-Van NGUYEN-SAUVAGE et al.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM
URS FINAL DETERMINATION

ARCELORMITTAL v. Long-Van NGUYEN-SAUVAGE et al.
Claim Number: FA1502001604365

DOMAIN NAME

<arcelormittal.paris>

PARTIES

	Complainant: ARCELORMITTAL Marie-Laurence Pied of LUXEMBOURG, Luxembourg
	Complainant Representative: Nameshield Laurent Becker of Angers, France

	Respondent: Long-Van NGUYEN-SAUVAGE of PARIS, --, France

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: City of Paris
	Registrars: DOMAINE.FR

EXAMINER

	The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
	Piotr Nowaczyk, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: February 11, 2015
	Commencement: February 11, 2015
	Response Date: February 24, 2015
	Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules").

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Clear and convincing evidence.

FINDINGS and DISCUSSION

	Procedural Findings:
		Multiple Complainants: The Complaint has not alleged multiple Complainants.
		Multiple Respondents: The Complaint has not alleged multiple Respondents.

Findings of Fact: The Complainant is an integrated steel and mining company which operates in 60 countries all around the world. It owns an international ARCELORMITTAL trademark which was registered on August 3th, 2007 under No. 947686 in classes 06, 07, 09, 12, 19, 21, 39, 40, 41, 42. The ARCELORMITTAL trademark is also registered in the TradeMark ClearingHouse (TMCH). Further, the trademark is used on the Complainant’s website “www.corporate.arcelormittal.com”. In the email dated February 24, 2015, Respondent expressed its will to resolve the case amicably. Namely, it offered to transfer the domain name to the Complainant in exchange of 500 euro excluding taxes.

URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.

[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
  (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
  (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
  (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.

Determined: Finding for Complainant

The domain name, <arcelormittal.paris> is identical to Complainant's ARCELORMITTAL trademark since it includes the exact wording of the registered trademark. The word “paris” which serves as a gtld does not distinguish the domain name. The Examiner finds that Complainant met the standard set out in 1.2.6.1. of the URS Procedure since it proved that it holds a valid international trademark registration. Further, the Complainant confirmed that the registered trademarks are in current use by presenting screenshots of its website “www.corporate.arcelormittal.com”.

[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant

The Respondent does not have any rights in the name “Arcelormittal” nor is the Respondent commonly known by this name. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent’s use of its mark and has no affiliation with the Respondent. Furthermore, as confirmed by Complainant, the Domain Name resolves to a parking page which clearly does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. Therefore, the Examiner finds that the Respondent has established no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (1.2.6.2. of the UDR Procedure).

[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
  a. Registrant has registered or 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 documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

Determined: Finding for Complainant

The Complainant has satisfied URS 1.2.6.3 since the Respondent knew or should have known about the Complainant's trademark when registering <arcelormittal.paris>. The ARCELORMITTAL trademark is well-known internationally. The Examiner agrees with the previous UDRP panels which have held that the incorporation of a famous mark into a domain name, coupled with an inactive website, may be evidence of bad faith registration and use. (CAC No. 100904 ARCELORMITTAL S.A. vs Roma Marx, CAC No. 100358 ARCELORMITTAL S.A. vs Yasser Choudhary). Additionally, the Examiner finds the Respondent’s offer to transfer the domain name for the price of 500 euro to be another evidence of its bad faith.

FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD

The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

The Examiner finds as follows:

The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods.

DETERMINATION

After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

arcelormittal.paris

Piotr Nowaczyk
Examiner
Dated: February 26, 2015

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page