DECISION

 

United States Steel Corporation v. Nah Shinjae

Claim Number: FA2506002160510

 

PARTIES

Complainant is United States Steel Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Michael D. Lazzara of Leech Tishman Fuscaldo & Lampl LLC, Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is Nah Shinjae ("Respondent"), South Korea.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <sssteel.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 12, 2025. Forum received payment on June 12, 2025.

 

On June 12, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <sssteel.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On June 16, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 7, 2025 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@sssteel.com. Also on June 16, 2025, 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 July 8, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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 for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN 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

Complainant, United States Steel Corporation, manufactures and sells a wide variety of steel sheet, plate, tubular and tin products, coke, and taconite pellets. Complainant has rights in the U.S.STEEL, USS and USS (logo) marks through registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). Complainant also owns inter alia the <ussteel.com> domain name, registered in 1997, through which goods/services are offered for sale to consumers.

 

Respondent's <sssteel.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant marks.

 

Respondent lacks rights or a legitimate interest in the <sssteel.com> domain name, which was registered long after Complainant, either itself or through its predecessors in interest, began commercially using Complainant's marks. Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant, nor is otherwise authorized to use any of Complainant's marks for any purpose. Upon information and belief, Respondent is not commonly known as "www.sssteel.com". Respondent does not use and, upon information and belief, has not made preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Upon information and belief, Respondent itself offers neither goods nor services. The domain name currently resolves to a parked page with sponsored links related to the steel and metal industry.

 

The <sssteel.com> domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith, primarily to profit from and exploit the goodwill associated with Complainant's marks.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has established all the elements entitling him to relief.

 

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 and is being used in bad faith.

 

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 has shown that it has rights inter alia in the mark U.S.STEEL, namely USPTO Registration No. 2,469,301, registered on July 17, 2001 for steel products, namely, steel coils, in International Class 6.

 

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0 "), section 1.7.

 

The Panel finds Respondent's <sssteel.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's U.S.STEEL mark, only differing by the omission of the punctuation marks and the substitution of the letter "s" for the letter "u", which are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's U.S.STEEL mark. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides 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 Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):

 

(i)                      before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent 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)                      Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

 

(iii)        Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

The <sssteel.com> domain name was registered on June 4, 2004, almost three years after the registration of Complainant's U.S.STEEL mark. It resolves to a parked webpage displaying the links "Stainless Steel Manufacturers", "Sheet Metal Roofing Rolls" and "Metal Roofing Machine", each of which resolves to sponsored pay-per-click links related to the steel and metal industry.

 

These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that he does have rights or legitimate interests in the <sssteel.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is expressed in the conjunctive: "the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith" and Paragraph 4(b) sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), namely:

 

(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 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 your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant, its  U.S.STEEL mark and <ussteel.com> domain name when Respondent registered the <sssteel.com> domain name and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website and of the products promoted on that website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Further, the Panel finds the <sssteel.com> domain name to be a typosquatted version of Complainant's U.S.STEEL mark. Typosquatting is independent evidence of bad faith registration and use of a domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Homer TLC, Inc. v. Artem Ponomarev, FA1623825 (Forum July 20, 2015).

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

DECISION

Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

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

 

 

 

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated: July 10, 2025