The Complainant is ARCELORMITTAL, a company registered under the law of Luxembourg. The Complainant is the largest steel producing company in the world and is the market leader in steel for use in automotive, construction, household appliances and packaging with 59 million tons crude steel made in 2022. It holds sizeable captive supplies of raw materials and operates extensive distribution networks in many countries worldwide.<\/p>\n
The Respondent – Mr. Ireneusz Bachurski - Przedsiębiorstwo INFO-BI – is a physical person, domiciled in Żywiec, Bracka 16\/11, 34-300, Poland. In the herein case it was not established whether If the Respondent operates as an entrepreneur or conducts any kind of business activity in other forms.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain <mital.eu> was registered on 6 June 2023. Under the disputed domain there are no particular information indicating on the Respondent nor his business activity. That domain resolves to a parking page where is offered for sale for 4500€.<\/p>\n
On 13 June 2023 the Complainant filed its Complaint, and the receipt of the Complaint was acknowledged by the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) on 13 June 2023. Also, on 13 June 2023 CAC issued a request for EURid verification, due to several issues that needed to be verified:<\/p>\n
Apart from that, EURid was requested to indicate the specific language of the registration agreement as used by the registrant for each domain name.<\/p>\n
On 14 June 2023 EURid provided the requested verification od the disputed domain name´s data. The CAC requested the Complainant to amend the complaint in accordance with the provided registrant data. On the same day the Complainant provided the amended version of the Complaint, that allowed CAC to commence the proceedings in the case at hand on 15 June 2023. As for the language of the proceedings, English language was selected.<\/p>\n
The Respondent did not respond to the communication, and failed to comply with the deadline indicated in the Notification of Complaint and Commencement of ADR Proceeding.<\/p>\n
On 2 August 2023 the Panel, having filed the necessary Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence had been appointed.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
There were no other legal proceedings related to the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "discussion_and_findings": "
In accordance to the material collected in the case at hand, it was proven without a doubt that the Complainant had earlier rights to the name Mittal than the date of the registration of the disputed domain name. Moreover, based on the Complainant’s evidence and historical description, it should be concluded that the Complainant’s trademark and corresponding tradename are distinctive and relatively well-known.<\/p>\n
The Respondent (residing in Poland) registered and used the disputed name in the disputed domain <mital.eu>, despite undeniable awareness of the popularity and reputation of the highly similar designation ‘mittal’, his trademarks and domain name. This is not altered by the fact that the contested designation is not identical to the ‘mittal’ designation. In the view of the herein Panel, the similarity of the compared designation is very high, which results in the risk of confusion of the users of the Internet. No particular activity on preparation or actual using the name ‘mital’ in the market by the Respondent were established in the herein case, justifying the registration of that name.<\/p>\n
In accordance to that, the Panel finds that the Respondent did not have any kind of rights to the name and no particular interest in registering such name that could be derived from any rights.<\/p>\n
In the view of the gathered evidence in the case at hand, the disputed domain was used by the Respondent primarily in order to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s earlier marks, profiting from their (intended or not) entrance to the website under the disputed domain name. That practise is indeed, as the Complainant stated in the content of the Complaint, known as typosquatting constituting an infringement of another's domain rights. Website under the domain ‘mital.eu’ is a parking page where is offered for sale for 4500€. That practise is to be considered as an infringement of Complainant’s rights, and a criminal offence, pursued by the provision of Polish law (law applicable to the Respondent).<\/p>\n
In accordance to Article 4 (4) of Regulation (EU) 2019\/517 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2019 on the implementation and functioning of the .eu top-level domain name and amending and repealing Regulation (EC) No 733\/2002 and repealing Commission Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004 (hereinafter referred to as: ‘Regulation’) a domain name may also be revoked, and where necessary subsequently transferred to another party, following an appropriate ADR or judicial procedure, in accordance with the principles and procedures on the functioning of the .eu TLD laid down pursuant to Article 11, where that name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is established by Union or national law, and where it:<\/p>\n
(a) has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or<\/p>\n
(b) has been registered or is being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n
Moreover, in accordance to the provisions of Part B(11)(e)(1)-(3) .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (hereinafter referred to as: \"ADR Rules\") a legitimate interest may be demonstrated where:<\/p>\n
(1) prior to any notice of the dispute, the Respondent has used the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with the offering of goods or services or has made demonstrable preparation to do so;<\/p>\n
(2) the Respondent, being an undertaking, organisation or natural person, has been commonly known by the domain name, even in the absence of a right recognised or established by national and\/or European Union law;<\/p>\n
(3) the Respondent is making legitimate and non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent to mislead consumers or harm the reputation of a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national law and\/or European Union law.<\/p>\n
In the case at hand, regardless of the illegal nature of the activity of the Respondent, none of the abovementioned circumstances, indicating on the justified interest in registering and using the domain, were established. Furthermore, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant´s designation and should have been known by the Respondent. Moreover, the disputed domain name most probably was created in order to imitate the former, which undermines legitimacy of any kind of interests that the Respondent could have demonstrated.<\/p>\n
Meeting of the previous conditions is deemed sufficient to decide about the transfer of the disputed domain name. The Panel nevertheless made assession of the third condition as well.<\/p>\n
In accordance to the provision of Article Part B(11)(f)(1)-(5) ff the ADR Rules, registering or using the designation in the bad faith refers to the situations, where:<\/p>\n
(1) Circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name to the holder of a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or European Union law, or to a public body; or<\/p>\n
(2) The domain name has been registered in order to prevent the holder of a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or European Union law, or a public body, from reflecting this name in a corresponding domain name, provided that:<\/p>\n
(i) the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or<\/p>\n
(ii) the domain name has not been used in a relevant way for at least two years from the date of registration; or<\/p>\n
(iii) there are circumstances where, at the time the ADR Proceeding was initiated, the Respondent has declared its intention to use the domain name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or European Union law or which corresponds to the name of a public body in a relevant way but failed to do so within six months of the day on which the ADR Proceeding was initiated;<\/p>\n
(3) the domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the professional activities of a competitor; or<\/p>\n
(4) the domain name was intentionally used to attract Internet users, for commercial gain to the Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or European Union law, or it is a name of a public body, with such likelihood arising as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location of the Respondent; or<\/p>\n
(5) the domain name is a personal name for which no demonstrable link exists between the Respondent and the domain name registered.<\/p>\n
In accordance to the above it has to be noted, that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent. Due to the evidences gathered in the proceedings, the domain <mital.eu> served primarily as a parking page with an offer for its sale for 4500€. Confusingly similar name of the disputed domain name to the distinctive and popular earlier designations of the Complainant was intended to profit from the impression that there is a relation between the disputed domain name and the Complainant. Confusion may arise also as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location of the holder of a domain name.<\/p>\n
In the opinion of the herein Panel the disputed domain name was intended to be used in such manner from the moment of its registration.<\/p>", "decision": "
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <mital.eu> be transferred to the Complainant.<\/p>", "panelists": [ "Mariusz Kondrat" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-08-22 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
I. Disputed domain name: mital.eu
II. Country of the Complainant: Luzembourg, country of the Respondent: Poland
III. Date of registration of the domain name: 6 June 2023
IV. Rights relied on by the Complainant (B(11)(f) ADR Rules) on which the Panel based its decision:<\/p>\n
1. word trademark registered internationally with designation under Madrid Protocol of inter alia territory of Israel, United States, New Zeeland, Turkey, reg. No. 1198046, for the term 10 years, filed on 5 December 2013, registered on 5 December 2013 in respect of goods and services in classes 6, 40<\/p>\n
2. word CTM, reg. No. , reg. No. 003975786, for the term 10 years, filed on 9 August 2004, registered on 1 December 2005 in respect of goods and services in classes 6, 40
V. Response submitted: No
VI. Domain name is confusingly similar to the protected right\/s of the Complainant
VII. Rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent (B(11)(f) ADR Rules):
1. No
2. Why:<\/p>\n
a) No registration of any kind related to the domain name under dispute.<\/p>\n
b) Not commonly known by the domain name.<\/p>\n
c) The holder of a domain name is not making a legitimate and non-commercial or fair use of the domain name.<\/p>\n
VIII. Bad faith of the Respondent (B(11)(e) ADR Rules):
1. Yes
2. Why:<\/p>\n
a) the domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of improper gains, disrupting the professional activities of the Compliant, in an attempt to impersonate the Compliant, offering the disputed domain for sale.<\/p>\n
b) the domain name was intentionally used to attract Internet users, for commercial gain, to the holder of a domain name website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a name on which a right is recognized or established by national and Community law, such likelihood arising as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location of the holder of a domain name.<\/p>\n
c) the domain name is highly similar to the name of a Complainants’ company, and the Panel has not been proved to have any connection between the Respondent and the registered disputed domain name. Nor is any such connection apparent;<\/p>\n
IX. Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant:<\/p>\n
None
X. Dispute Result: Transfer of the disputed domain name
XI. Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant:<\/p>\n
None <\/p>\n
XII. If transfer to Complainant Is Complainant eligible? Yes<\/p>", "decision_domains": [], "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }