ARCELORMITTAL v. Dave Chandler et al.
Claim Number: FA1605001674762
Complainant: ARCELORMITTAL of LUXEMBOURG, Luxembourg.
Complainant Representative: Nameshield of Angers, France.
Respondent: Dave Chandler of Halifax, Nova Scotia, CA.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: CLUB DOMAINS, LLC
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.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: May 13, 2016
Commencement: May 13, 2016
Response Date: May 17, 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") .
PROCEDURAL FINDINGS
Although the complaint refers to Respondent as “Dave Chandler et al.,” this proceeding features a sole Respondent and a single domain name.
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
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.
1.2.6.1. that the registered domain name is 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 .usURS complaint is filed.
1.2.6.2. that the Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name
1.2.6.3. that the domain was registered or is being used in bad faith.
Respondent’s response admits all three elements.
After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence.
Complainant owns rights in the ARCELORMITTAL mark. The domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark. The additional of the generic top-level domain “.club” does not distinguish the domain name from the mark.
Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its registered trademarks. Complainant submits evidence that the domain name redirects to a website. Complainant has established that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Examiner finds that Respondent had Complainant in mind when registering the disputed domain name and that Respondent registered the domain name to be used to intentionally attract internet users seeking Complainant’s website for commercial gain.
The Examiner further determines that there is no evidence to support Respondent’s contention that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of the URS process or contains material falsehoods.
The Examiner hereby ORDERS the following domain name be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Examiner
Dated: May 19, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page