ARCELORMITTAL v. Edward Tweedy
Claim Number: FA1604001671797
Complainant: ARCELORMITTAL, of LUXEMBOURG, Luxembourg.
Complainant Representative: Nameshield, of Angers, France.
Respondent: Edward Tweedy, of Greensboro, North Carolina, US.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotWebsite Inc.
Registrars: NameCheap, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Jeffrey M. Samuels, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: April 25, 2016
Commencement: April 25, 2016
Default Date: May 10, 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").
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Complainant ArcelorMittal is the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4686413 for the mark MITTAL, as well as CTM, No. 459382, for the MITTAL mark. The MITTAL mark also is registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH).
The disputed domain name, mittal.website, is used in connection with a parking page featuring pay-per-click (PPC) links to Complainant’s activities.
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.
The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MITTAL mark. The domain name incorporates in full the MITTAL mark and the addition of the generic top-level domain “.website” does not dispel the confusing similarity. The evidence further establishes that Complainant has rights in the MITTAL mark and that the mark is in current use.
The Examiner further finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that Complainant carries out any activity for, nor has any business with, Respondent. Further, as noted above, the disputed domain name displays a parking page containing PPC links to Complainant’s activities. Complainant cites Vance Int’l. v. Abend, FA 970871, for the proposition that “the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees.”
Finally, the Examiner concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The evidence establishes that Respondent used the domain name intentionally to attract visitors for commercial gain by causing confusion with Complainant’s mark. The fact that the MITTAL mark is registered in the TMCH supports a determination that Respondent was aware of such mark at the time of registration of the domain name in issue.
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
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 be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
mittal.website
Jeffrey M. Samuels, Examiner
Dated: May 10, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page