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.

[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are 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 URS complaint is filed.

The registered domain name <arcelormittal.wang> fully incorporates the word mark ArcellorMittal for which the Complainant holds a valid international registration and that is in current use (verified by TMCH). In addition, it is well accepted that the top level domain is irrelevant in assessing identity or confusing similarity, thus .wang is of no consequence here. Respectively, the Examiner finds that the domain name <arcelormittal.wang> is identical to the Complainant’s ArcellorMittal mark under URS 1.2.6.1. (i).

[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

The Examiner determines that the Respondent is not commonly known by the ArcellorMittal name and he has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use Complainant’s ArcellorMittal mark in a domain name or otherwise. The domain name is neither generic nor descriptive. Passive holding or non-use of a domain name is evidence of a lack of legitimate rights in the domain name. Therefore, the Examiner finds that the Complaint meets URS requirement of 1.2.6.2.

[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
  a. Registrant has registered or 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 documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s 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 Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

The bad faith exists where the respondent, by using the domain name, has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website 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 its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location. The domain is connected with the ArcellorMittal combined with the suffix .wang. .wang has a natural appeal to Chinese speakers. By extension, .WANG can be used by anyone who wishes to have a web presence that has the potential to be catchy and recognizable to millions of Chinese-speaking Internet users. By visiting the site, customers will most likely expect to reach the ArcellorMittal website or the website operated by someone who has any ties with or relation to the ArcellorMittal which is strongly present onto the international market and is known worldwide. The Respondent who has never been granted the right to use the ArcellorMittal mark and who does not have any affiliation ties with the Complainant is using the confusion in the minds of consumers over the use of the well-known ArcellorMittal mark to divert users to the own website. The records of the case do not provide any evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use by him of the domain name. Due to registration of the Complainant’s trademark in TMCH Respondent must have known of Complainant's famous trademark at the time of the registration of the domain name and must also have known that the registration of the domain names was in bad faith. Thus, the Examiner finds the domain name <arcelormittal.wang> misleading that supports finding of bad faith registration under URS 1.2.6.3.(d).

The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

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 name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

arcelormittal.wang

	Complainant Submitted: July 20, 2016
	Commencement: July 21, 2016
	Default Date: August 5, 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: ArcelorMittal of Luxembourg, Luxembourg
	Complainant Representative: Nameshield Laurent Becker of Angers, France

	Respondent: xia men yin si bao hu fu wu you xian gong si wuwen bin of xia men shi, fu jian, II, CN

	Registries: Zodiac Leo Limited
	Registrars: xiamen eName Technology

	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.
	Ms. Kateryna Oliinyk, as Examiner