national arbitration forum



ArcelorMittal v. Andrew Davis et al.

Claim Number: FA1403001550814






Complainant: ArcelorMittal of Luxembourg, Luxembourg.

Complainant Representative: Nameshield of Angers, France.


Respondent: Andrew Davis of Port of Spain, International, Trinidad And Tobago.


CEO Email and Link Services of Port of Spain, International, Trinidad And Tobago.



Registries: CEO Registry

Registrars: 101domain, Inc.



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.


Luz Helena Villamil Jimenez, as Examiner.



Complainant submitted: March 26, 2014

Commencement: March 28, 2014     

Response Date: March 28, 2014


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") .



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



Clear and convincing evidence.




The complaint refers to the domain name In accordance with URS 1.2.6.           the Complainant claims (i) that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; (ii) that The Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name, and (iii) that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.


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. In order to determine whether the mentioned requirement is met, the Examiner elaborates as follows:



The documentation submitted by the Complainant evidences that the company ARCELORMITTAL is the owner of the trademark MITTAL registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office under N° 3587113. The website shows that indeed the trademark MITTAL was registered under N° 3587113 on March 10, 2009, and in force until March 10, 2019 to cover goods of international Class 6 and services of international Class 40. Furthermore, the documentation attached to the Complaint (the declaration submitted to register the trademark MITTAL with the Trademark Clearinghouse, a screenshot of the website promoting the services rendered under the trademark MITTAL and an invoice copy) demonstrates that the trademark MITTAL is in use, and therefore the Complainant meets the URS requirement of




The Complainant asserts that the Registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name and that he is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business; that the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent, and that the Registrant is not known as the domain name.


To respond this allegation the Respondent argues that he does have a legitimate interest in the domain name, that the Complainant has not seen or heard his plans for a website, and therefore this is a false claim.


In this concern the Examiner, fulfilling the duty of verifying whether the Complainant has made false claims as alleged by the Respondent, searched on the internet the website The webpage does not exist. The Respondent argues that he has prepared certain documents to illustrate the services he plans to render under the .CEO sites, but in the opinion of the Examiner, this does not demonstrate any kind of legitimate interest to use a trademark that belongs to a third party and which the Respondent was aware of, since having been registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse it was made known to him when he was obtaining the registration of the domain name Therefore, the Examiner finds that the Complaint meets URS requirement of




As stated above, the Examiner has ascertained that the webpage does not exist, and therefore the domain name is not in use. Furthermore, the Examiner considers that the examples given by the Respondent to support his legitimate interest argument explaining the services he plans to render demonstrate, on the contrary, that having knowingly registered a domain name that consists of a trademark that belongs to a third party, and that in addition the arrangements to use it consist of offering email addresses such as ContactMe@Mittal.CEO, WriteMe@Mittal.CEO, or John@Mittal.CEO would more than likely lead to believe that the person(s) in question is/are just members of the staff of the MITTAL company. Consequently, this could create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to an affiliation with the Registrant’s website and company, confusion and association to which the Respondent is not entitled. Therefore, the Examiner finds that the Complaint meets URS requirement of





The Respondent has alleged that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods. The Respondent asserts that the Complainant presented a screenshot of his website Mittal.CEO prior to him having control of that domain, and that it is possibly that the Complainant did this knowingly in order to falsely accuse the Respondent of Cybersquatting. The Examiner finds that this contention is not supported, and is only an attempt to obtain a favorable decision arguing that he has made preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent stated that in his site he plans to offer email and web link services to interested buyers, offering email addresses such as ContactMe@Mittal.CEO, WriteMe@Mittal.CEO, or John@Mittal.CEO, and at the same time states that his website will not contain any content that confuses its visitors with the Trademark/Company MITTAL. The Examiner finds this statement totally inconsistent, since the sole fact that email addresses planned to be sold by the Respondent contain the domain MITTAL which happens to be the name of a company and a registered trademark, does immediately create an association and a confusion with the owner of the trademark that cannot be allowed.


Moreover, and again fulfilling the duty of exhausting the search for information to establish whether the complaint could be an abusive one, the Examiner conducted a whois search of the domain and immediately received the following prompt: ““Andrew Davis” is associated with about 609 other domains”. In the present case, the Examiner considers that holding such a large portfolio of domain names is an indicia of bad faith, particularly considering that, as seen in this case, an identical trademark owned by a third party is involved.


Therefore, the Examiner refuses the Respondent’s allegation as to the abusive character of the Complaint.




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 names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.






Luz Helena Villamil Jimenez, Examiner

Dated:  April 3, 2014




Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page