DECISION

 

ARCELORMITTAL v bill chill yht

Claim Number: FA2312002074990

PARTIES

Complainant is ARCELORMITTAL ("Complainant"), represented by Laurent Becker of Nameshield, France. Respondent is bill chill yht ("Respondent"), Germany.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <arcelormittal.com.se>, registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant participated in the mandatory CentralNic Mediation, and the mediation process was terminated on December 7, 2023.

 

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 13, 2023; Forum received payment on December 14, 2023.

 

On December 13, 2023, Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <arcelormittal.com.se> domain name is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance the CentralNic Dispute Resolution Policy (the "CDRP Policy").

 

On December 19, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 8, 2024 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@arcelormittal.com.se. Also on December 19, 2023, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On January 9, 2024, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules to the CDRP Dispute Resolution Policy ("Rules"). Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the CDRP Policy, CDRP Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

i) Complainant is a company specialized in steel producing in the world. Complainant is the largest steel producing company in the world and the market leader in steel for use in automotive, construction, household appliances and packaging. It holds sizeable captive supplies of raw materials and operates extensive distribution networks. Complainant has rights in the ARCELORMITTAL mark based upon the international registration (e.g., Reg. No. 947686, registered August 3, 2007). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ARCELORMITTAL mark because it contains the mark in its entirety, merely adding the suffix ".com.se." 

 

ii) Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Complainant has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use the ARCELORMITTAL mark and Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The disputed domain resolves to an inactive webpage.

 

iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent capitalized on the goodwill associated with Complainant's mark for commercial gain. The disputed domain redirects users to an inactive webpage. Respondent's bad faith is further demonstrated by the fact that MX servers are configured, which suggests that the disputed domain name may be actively used for email purposes. Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the ARCELORMITTAL mark when it registered the disputed domain name.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on November 15, 2023.

 

2. Complainant has rights in the ARCELORMITTAL mark based upon the registration with the WIPO (e.g., Reg. No. 947686, registered August 3, 2007).

 

3. The disputed domain resolves to an inactive webpage.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

 

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

(1)       the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2)       Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)       the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.

 

The CDRP also requires that Complainant have participated in a CentralNic Mediation, and that said mediation must have been terminated prior to the consideration of the Complaint.

        

Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP") and the CDRP Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.

 

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.  The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant asserts rights in the ARCELORMITTAL mark based upon the registration with the WIPO (e.g., Reg. No. 947686, registered August 3, 2007). Registration of a mark with the WIPO is generally considered to be a valid showing of rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant provides evidence of registration of the ARCELORMITTAL mark with the WIPO. Thus, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ARCELORMITTAL mark because it contains the mark in its entirety, merely adding the ".com" and ".se" domains. The Panel agrees and finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ARCELORMITTAL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant argues Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Where a respondent does not provide evidence to the contrary, evidence that a respondent is not commonly known by a domain name, under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), may be found where the identifying WHOIS information is unrelated to a domain name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The unmasked WHOIS information shows "bill chill yht" as the registrant of the disputed domain name. Furthermore, Complainant asserts Respondent is not authorized or licensed to use Complainant's ARCELORMITTAL mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Additionally, Complainant argues Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website. A domain name may be found not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), where a respondent has not made active use of a domain name. See George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name under either Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where it failed to make any active use of the domain name). The Panel notes that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking webpage with a message saying that "Happy to see your domain with Hostinger!" Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the considerations above. All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration or Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith because Respondent has not made active use of the domain name. The Panel recalls that Complainant provides a screenshot showing that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page.

 

The Panel agrees that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used in bad faith within the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.  See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (finding that in considering whether the passive holding of a domain name, following a bad faith registration of it, satisfies the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii), the panel must give close attention to all the circumstances of the respondent's behavior, and a remedy can be obtained under the Policy only if those circumstances show that the respondent's passive holding amounts to acting in bad faith.).

 

The particular circumstances of this case that the Panel has considered are:

 

i) Complainant is one of the largest steel manufacturers in North America, South America, and Europe: steel manufacturing in 16 countries; customers in 155 countries; and 154,352 employees in 2022 according to the information which Complainant has provided. As such, Complainant's mark ARCELORMITTAL is considered as being a well-known and reputable trademark; and

 

ii) Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the disputed domain name.

 

Taking into account all of the above, the Panel concludes that Respondent's passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii) and that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

Complainant further contends that that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant's rights in ARCELORMITTAL mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name because of Complainant's international presence and pervasiveness in the steel and mining industry. The Panel infers, due to the notoriety of Complainant's mark that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant's rights in the ARCELORMITTAL mark at the time of its registering the disputed domain name, and finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the CDRP Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <arcelormittal.com.se> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: January 12, 2024