Westmore · UDRP DecisionArcelorrnittal.biz
The Panel ordered transfer of <arcelorrnittal.biz>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ARCELORMITTAL mark because the visually similar letters “rn” replaced “m”; found no rights or legitimate interests based on the inactive website, lack of bona fide or legitimate use, and absence of evidence of preparations; and inferred bad-faith registration and use from the obvious misspelling of the widely used and distinctive mark and the Respondent’s passive holding of the domain.
The timeline behind arcelorrnittal.biz
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind arcelorrnittal.biz — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates a straightforward visual-typosquatting pattern in which “rn” was used to imitate “m”. It also shows how an inactive domain can satisfy the bad-faith-use requirement when the mark is distinctive, the domain is an obvious misspelling, no bona fide reason is apparent, and the respondent provides no contrary explanation.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Arcelormittal (SA) v. CLAY RUSH Case No. D2019-1357 1. The Parties The Complainant is Arcelormittal (SA), Luxembourg, represented by Nameshield, France. The Respondent is CLAY RUSH, United States of America (“USA”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <arcelorrnittal.biz> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Gandi SAS (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 13, 2019, naming the Respondent as “Redacted for Privacy”. The Center transmitted its request for registrar verification to the Registrar the same day. The Registrar replied on June 14, 2019, confirming that it had received a copy of the Complaint, that the Domain Name was registered with it, that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”) applied, that the Domain Name was created on September 19, 2012 and would expire on June 5, 2020, that it had been and would remain locked during this proceeding, and that the language of the registration agreement was English. The Registrar identified the registrant as CLAY RUSH and provided the full contact details held on its WhoIs database. The Center provided the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar to the Complainant on June 20, 2019 and invited the Complainant to amend the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint the same day, naming the Respondent as CLAY RUSH. The Center verified that the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the UDRP, the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 25, 2019. In accordance with paragraph 5 of the Rules, the due date for Response was July 15, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 16, 2019. The Center appointed Jonathan Turner as the sole panelist in this matter on July 24, 2019. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with paragraph 7 of the Rules. Having reviewed the file, the Panel is satisfied that the amended Complaint complied with applicable formal requirements, was duly notified to the Respondent, and has been submitted to a properly constituted Panel in accordance with the UDRP, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is one of the largest steel producing company in the world and has business operations in more than 60 countries. It is the owner of international trademark no. 947686 for the word “ArcelorMittal” registered on August 3, 2007. It is also the registrant of the domain names <arcelormittal.com> and <arcelormittal.biz>, both registered in 2006. The Domain Name does not currently locate any web page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its registered mark ARCELORMITTAL, from which it differs only in the substitution of the letter “M” by the letters “RN” and the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix. The Complainant observes that this is a clear case of typosquatting. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Complainant states that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name or any corresponding name and has not been authorized to use the Complainant’s mark. The Complainant points out that the Domain Name does not locate any active web page and thus is not being used for any bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Complainant infers that the Respondent has not made any demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name for a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant alleges that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant states that its ARCELORMITTAL mark is well known and distinctive, and infers that the Respondent registered the Domain Name with full knowledge of it. The Complainant also draws attention to the facts that the Domain Name contains a miss-spelling of the Complainant’s mark and that it does not locate any active web page. The Complainant argues that there is no plausible use of the Domain Name that would not be illegitimate. The Complainant requests a decision that the Domain Name be transferred to it. B. Respondent As stated above, the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove: (i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which it has rights: (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. It is convenient to consider each of these requirements in turn. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences as it considers appropriate from the Respondent’s failure to file a response. This includes the acceptance of plausible evidence of the Complainant which has not been disputed. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant has registered rights in the mark ARCELORMITTAL. The Panel further finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to this mark. As has been determined in numerous UDRP decisions, the gTLD suffix does not provide any relevant distinction. The only other difference between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark is the substitution of the letters “RN” for the letter “M”. In lower case in many fonts “rn” is virtually indistinguishable from “m”. There is an obvious confusing similarity. As the Complainant observes, this is a clear case of typosquatting. The first requirement of the UDRP is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel is satisfied by the undisputed evidence that the Respondent has not made any use of the Domain Name or any corresponding name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or for any legitimate noncommercial or fair purpose. The Panel further infers from the lack of any evidence of any preparations to use the Domain Name that the Respondent has not made any demonstrable preparations to use it for a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel is also satisfied that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name. Given the nature of the Domain Name as an obvious miss-spelling of the Complainant’s mark, there is no other basis on which the Respondent could claim to have any rights or legitimate interests in it. The second requirement of the UDRP is satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel is satisfied on the undisputed evidence that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s widely used and distinctive mark when it registered the Domain Name. In view of the Domain Name’s nature as an obvious miss-spelling of that mark, there does not appear to be any bona fide reason for the Respondent to register or use it, and it is therefore to be inferred that the Respondent registered and is now holding it in bad faith. As has been determined in other UDRP cases, the passive retention of the Domain Name with a view to its use or sale for an illegitimate purpose is a form of use of the Domain Name sufficient to satisfy the third requirement of the UDRP. The Panel concludes that the third requirement of the UDRP is satisfied. All three requirements for a successful Complaint under the UDRP are met and it is appropriate to direct that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <arcelorrnittal.biz> be transferred to the Complainant. Jonathan Turner Sole Panelist Date: August 7, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around arcelorrnittal.biz
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.