URS FINAL DETERMINATION

ArcelorMittal SA v. Yuan Heng Guang et al.
Claim Number: FA1512001653488

DOMAIN NAME

<arcelor.xyz>

PARTIES

	Complainant: ArcelorMittal SA Marie-Laurence Pied of Luxembourg, Luxembourg
	Complainant Representative: Nameshield Anne Morin of Angers, France

	Respondent: corperate culture hengguang yuan of Shanghai, China

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: XYZ.COM LLC
	Registrars: Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn)

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.
	Mr. Sebastian Matthew White Hughes, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: December 22, 2015
	Commencement: December 22, 2015
	Response Date: January 2, 2016
	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: [OptionalComment]

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

Complainant relies upon its international trade mark registration number 778212 for the word mark ARCELOR, registered since February 25, 2002. Complainant's word mark has been registered with the TMCH since October 3rd, 2013. The disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's word mark.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant

Registrant has made no use of the domain name and has not adduced evidence to demonstrate any legitimate rights or interests in the domain name. The domain name has been passively held.

[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

In all the circumstances, Respondent must have known of Complainant and of its rights in its word mark prior to registration of the domain name. Respondent complains that Respondent was not contacted by Complainant prior to filing of the URS proceeding; rejects the URS procedure on the grounds Respondent is a Chinese citizen; argues that Respondent has not caused any loss to Complainant as the domain name has not been used; and advises Respondent is willing to accept a friendly settlement. None of these arguments is relevant to the question of bad faith (or indeed to the other elements of the URS procedure).

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:

The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods.

Respondent asserts that Respondent has no arbitration agreement with Complainant, that this URS proceeding has been forced on Respondent, and that the proceeding has caused (unsubstantiated) harm to Respondent. None of these submissions is relevant or is otherwise made out on the evidence.

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:

arcelor.xyz

Mr. Sebastian Matthew White Hughes
Examiner
Dated: January 5, 2016

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page