Arcelormittal (SA) v 蒋元旦 (jiang yuan dan), 元数 (无锡) 信息科技有限公司

WIPO Case No. D2023-1382

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Arcelormittal (SA) v. 蒋元旦 (jiang yuan dan), 元数 (无锡) 信息科技有限公司
(yuan shu wu xi xin xi ke ji you xian gong si)

Case No. D2023-1382

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Arcelormittal (SA), Luxembourg, represented by Nameshield, France.

The Respondent is 蒋元旦 (jiang yuan dan), 元数 (无锡) 信息科技有限公司 (yuan shu wu xi xin xi ke ji you xian gong si), China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <mittal-iron.com> is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina

( (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 30, 2023. On March 30, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 31, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 31, 2023, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint in English on April 3, 2023.

On March 31, 2023, the Center transmitted an email communication to the Parties in English and Chinese regarding the language of the proceeding. On April 3, 2023, the Complainant submitted its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal
requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “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”).

page 2

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on April 6, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 26, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 27, 2023.

The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on May 11, 2023. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background
A. Complainant

The Complainant is a company headquartered in Luxembourg and operating globally under, amongst other marks, the trade mark MITTAL (the “Trade Mark”). The Complainant is one of the largest steel manufacturers in the world, with 69.1 million tons of crude steel made in 2021. The Complainant holds sizeable captive supplies of raw materials and operates extensive distribution networks. The Complainant is the owner of International registration No. 1198046 for the Trade Mark (with designation including China), registered on December 5, 2013.

B. Respondent

The Respondent is located in China.

C. The Disputed Domain Name

The disputed domain name was registered on March 22, 2023.

D. Use of the Disputed Domain Name

The disputed domain name was previously used in respect of an English language website, which
impersonated an official or authorised website of the Complainant, featuring content copied from the
Complainant’s official website, under the name MITTALER STEEL (the “Website”). As at the date of this

Decision, the disputed domain name no longer resolves to an active website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Trade disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1. Procedural Issue: Language of the Proceeding

The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Pursuant to the
Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the Parties, or unless specified otherwise
in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the
Registration Agreement.

Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules allows the Panel to determine the language of the proceeding having regard to all the circumstances. In particular, it is established practice to take paragraphs 10(b) and (c) of the Rules into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceeding, in order to ensure fairness to the parties and the maintenance of an inexpensive and expeditious avenue for resolving domain name disputes. Language requirements should not lead to undue burden being placed on the parties and undue delay to the proceeding (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5.1).

The Complainant has requested that the language of the proceeding be English, primarily because proceeding in Chinese would involve additional translation costs likely higher than the overall costs of this proceeding.

The Respondent did not make any submissions regarding the language of the proceeding, and did not file
any response in either Chinese or English, after the Respondent had been duly notified in both Chinese and
English of the language of the proceeding, and of the Complaint.

In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both Parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the Parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time, and costs.

In light of the content of the Website, the Panel finds there is sufficient evidence in support of the conclusion that the Respondent is conversant in English.

The Panel is also mindful of the need to ensure the proceeding is conducted in a timely and cost effective manner.

Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English.

6.2 Substantive Elements of the Policy

The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through registration and use.

The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Trade Mark (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section

1.7) followed by a hyphen and the word “iron”.

Where a relevant trade mark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms
(whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of

confusing similarity under the first element (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8).

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.

page 4

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of non-exhaustive circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name:

(i)        before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii)       the respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name even if the respondent has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or

(iii)      the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.

The Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use the Trade Mark. The Panel finds on the record that there is a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the burden of

production is thus on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption.

The Respondent has failed to show that he has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain name or that the disputed domain name has been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the disputed domain name has been used in respect of the Website, in

order to impersonate the Complainant and pass off the Website as a website of, or authorised by, the
Complainant.

There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name; and there has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

In addition, the Panel notes the nature of the disputed domain name, comprising the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety combined with a term related to Complainant’s activity, which carries a risk of implied association (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1).

The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel, therefore, finds that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

In light of the manner of use of the disputed domain name highlighted in section 6.2.B above, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

The fact the Respondent has ceased using the Website following the filing of the Complaint herein, whilst otherwise taking no part in this proceeding, provides further support for a finding of bad faith in this proceeding.

page 5

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 disputed domain name <mittal-iron.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Sebastian M.W. Hughes/
Sebastian M.W. Hughes
Sole Panelist
Dated: May 22, 2023