URS FINAL DETERMINATION


ARCELORMITTAL S.A. v. N/A et al.
Claim Number: FA1507001627541


DOMAIN NAME

<arcelormittal.website>


PARTIES


   Complainant: ARCELORMITTAL S.A. of Luxembourg, Luxembourg
  
Complainant Representative: Nameshield Laurent Becker of Angers, France

   Respondent: geosum international geosum international geosum geosum of madrid, II, Spain
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: DotWebsite Inc.
   Registrars: PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com

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.
   Hector Ariel Manoff, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: July 7, 2015
   Commencement: July 8, 2015
   Response Date: July 9, 2015
   Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the 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



   Findings of Fact: The Complainant owns an International trademark registration for "ARCELORMITTAL", registered on 2007. The trademark "ARCELORMITTAL" is also registered in the TradeMark ClearingHouse (TMCH) since 2013.

  

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 disputed domain name <arcelormittal.website> is identical to the Complainant’s Trademark ARCELORMITTAL. The addition of the new gTLD “.website” does not have any impact on the overall impression provided by the name “ARCELORMITTAL”. Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark registrations and that Complainant has complied with URS 1.2.6.1 by demonstrating that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark for which the Complainant holds a valid registration which is in current use.


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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its registered trademarks ARCELORMITTAL. No evidence was submitted to prove that Respondent is commonly known as ARCELORMITTAL. There is no evidence about rights or legitimate interest in ARCELORMITTAL and the disputed domain name, or evidence about a fair use either. The Examiner finds that the requirements set forth by URS 1.2.6.2 have been also met.


[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 


Since Complainant’s trademark is prior to the disputed domain name’s registration, Examiner concludes that the registration of the disputed domain name (identical to a registered trademark) was made on bad faith. Furthermore, Respondent registered the disputed domain name despite having received a notification stating that the domain name matches a trademark registered in the TMCH. Finally, the domain does not lead to any active website. The Registrant therefore does not show bona fide offering of goods or services. Examiner finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith to attract for commercial gain and that Complainant has complied with URS 1.2.6.3.


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.

Respondent has alleged that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods. 

The Examiner finds as follows:


  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 

Respondent has alleged that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding. Respondent's allegation of abuse is unsupported by any facts. Respondent merely asserts that this proceeding was filed with the intention of “stealing its domain name”, which was “registered under the law”. Respondent needs more than mere allegations to support a finding that Complainant has abused this proceeding. Respondent fails to indicate any alleged falsehoods. The Examiner further finds the Complaint was not brought in an abuse of the administrative proceeding nor contains material falsehoods as explained above.


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:

  1. arcelormittal.website

 


Hector Ariel Manoff
Examiner
Dated: July 13, 2015

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page