The new gTLD domain name, Mittal.ceo was just suspended by a Uniform Rapid Suspension Examiner Villamil Jimenez
As we guessed the complainant was ArcelorMittal of Luxembourg, Luxembourg.
The Complainant was submitted on March 26, 2014 and the decision is out on March 4th.
The Complainant claims (i) that the domain name mittal.ceo is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; (ii) that The Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name, and (iii) that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The documentation submitted by the Complainant evidences that the company ARCELORMITTAL is the owner of the trademark MITTAL registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office under N° 3587113. The trademark MITTAL was registered under N° 3587113 on March 10, 2009, and in force until March 10, 2019 to cover goods of international Class 6 and services of international Class 40.
Furthermore, the trademark MITTAL was submitted to the Trademark Clearinghouse.
In this concern the Examiner, fulfilling the duty of verifying whether the Complainant has made false claims as alleged by the Respondent, searched on the internet the website www.mittal.ceo. The webpage does not exist.
The Respondent argues that he has prepared certain documents to illustrate the services he plans to render under the .CEO sites, but in the opinion of the Examiner, this does not demonstrate any kind of legitimate interest to use a trademark that belongs to a third party and which the Respondent was aware of, since having been registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse it was made known to him when he was obtaining the registration of the domain name mittal.ceo.
As stated above, the Examiner has ascertained that the webpage www.mittal.ceo does not exist, and therefore the domain name mittal.ceo is not in use.
Furthermore, the Examiner considers that the examples given by the Respondent to support his legitimate interest argument explaining the services he plans to render demonstrate, on the contrary, that having knowingly registered a domain name that consists of a trademark that belongs to a third party, and that in addition the arrangements to use it consist of offering email addresses such as ContactMe@Mittal.CEO, WriteMe@Mittal.CEO, or John@Mittal.CEO would more than likely lead to believe that the person(s) in question is/are just members of the staff of the MITTAL company.
Since the sole fact that email addresses planned to be sold by the Respondent contain the domain MITTAL which happens to be the name of a company and a registered trademark, does immediately create an association and a confusion with the owner of the trademark that cannot be allowed.
Moreover, and again fulfilling the duty of exhausting the search for information to establish whether the complaint could be an abusive one, the Examiner conducted a whois search of the domain Mittal.ceo and immediately received the following prompt: ““Andrew Davis” is associated with about 609 other domains”. In the present case, the Examiner considers that holding such a large portfolio of domain names is an indicia of bad faith, particularly considering that, as seen in this case, an identical trademark owned by a third party is involved.
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 names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
In the present case, the Examiner considers that holding such a large portfolio of domain names is an indicia of bad faith, particularly considering that, as seen in this case, an identical trademark owned by a third party is involved.
Hello, I am the Andrew Davis mentioned in this case, whose Domain Name (Mittal.CEO) was suspended.
I would like to say, that even if the end result of this case was that I was found in violation of Trademark laws, I have no problem in accepting such a decision.
However, I feel that the reasoning used by the Examiner to come to this conclusion, was very one-sided, in favour of the Complainant (ArcelorMittal).
As far as I’m aware: “The URS requires a heavier burden of proof by mandating that the elements must be demonstrated by CLEAR and CONVINCING evidence”
It is meant for: “The most Clear-Cut cases of Infringement”
I feel that this case did not meet those requirements, to render such a decision.
I would like to point out some things:
———-
1) >>““Andrew Davis” is associated with about 609 other domains”.
This is completely False and Inaccurate. I have never owned such a great number of domains.
At the moment, I own around 170 Domains at most, the majority of which I only acquired last week.
In my lifetime, I’ve probably owned around 200 Domains MAXIMUM, many of which are also the Domain names of Clients of mine.
So I do not understand where the Examiner got this “609” figure from; that number is Highly Inaccurate.
———-
2) >>”the Examiner has ascertained that the webpage http://www.mittal.ceo does not exist, and therefore the domain name mittal.ceo is not in use.”
I understand that the Examiner listened to my side of the story as well; however I feel that this trivial point was taken too strongly, in this case.
Also, this was the MAIN point of accusation by the Complainant. I think it should not have impacted this case heavily, because:
a) I was awarded Mittal.CEO on March 24th. The Complainant submitted this case on March 26th.
Logically, 2 days from acquisition is too little time to accuse someone of “Parking” a Domain name with no legitimate interest in said domain.
b) Even though I was awarded the Domain on March 24th, all .CEO Domains were LOCKED until March 28th, meaning that it was IMPOSSIBLE for me to display any content on that domain, before the complaint was launched.
The only .CEO domains that were Live before March 28th, 2014, were those directly owned and operated by the .CEO Registry, PeopleBrowsr.
———-
3) >>”The Respondent argues that he has prepared certain documents to illustrate the services he plans to render under the .CEO sites, but in the opinion of the Examiner, this does not demonstrate any kind of legitimate interest to use a trademark that belongs to a third party”…
“Therefore, the Examiner finds that the Complaint meets URS requirement of 1.2.6.2.”
This again, is a very weak point, in my opinion.
I have presented documents in this case, which showed the Drafts I created for each of my .CEO sites, including Mittal.CEO.
Additionally, ALL of my other .CEO sites were Live with content, on March 28th.
Successfully launching 100+ websites, within a matter of hours of owning those sites, would obviously take more than just 2 days of prior preparation. Thus, it is clear that I had a valid plan of use for Mittal.CEO, even before the complaint was made.
———-
4) >>” a trademark that belongs to a third party and which the Respondent was aware of, since having been registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse it was made known to him when he was obtaining the registration of the domain name mittal.ceo.”
Yes, it is true that I was made aware that “Mittal” is a Trademarked name, however, Mittal is also a fairly common name in India, and I believe that many “Mittals” around the world would have liked to use my services.
Additionally, I think that these “Trademark Notices” are a little “Wild”.
Apparently almost EVERY name is Trademarked, including:
Andrew, Ali, Bob, Bruce, Davis, Fred, George, Martin, Simon, Thomas… to name a FEW.
How is one supposed to know which names are “Acceptable” enough to purchase; when almost every common name is listed as “Trademarked”?
———-
5) >>”the arrangements to use it consist of offering email addresses such as ContactMe@Mittal.CEO, WriteMe@Mittal.CEO, or John@Mittal.CEO would more than likely lead to believe that the person(s) in question is/are just members of the staff of the MITTAL company. Consequently, this could create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to an affiliation with the Registrant’s website and company, confusion and association to which the Respondent is not entitled.”
I understand what the Examiner is saying, and she does have a point, in that, “ContactMe@Mittal.CEO” could be mistaken as being a legitimate email address of the Mittal company.
However, my Website, in and of itself, does NOT cause any confusion in regards to affiliation or association with the Mittal company.
Additionally, I the Respondent, am NOT the person who these email addresses are intended for.
The intent was that CEOs, Business owners and Leaders named Mittal could purchase these Domain names for their personal use.
Therefore, I feel that it is FAIR for other CEOs/Persons named “Mittal” to use an email address such as “ContactMe@Mittal.CEO”.
Lakshmi Mittal and the Mittal company should NOT be the only entities in this world, who are entitled to use such a domain/email.
———-
6) >>” The Respondent asserts that the Complainant presented a screenshot of his website Mittal.CEO prior to him having control of that domain, and that it is possibly that the Complainant did this knowingly in order to falsely accuse the Respondent of Cybersquatting. The Examiner finds that this contention is not supported, and is only an attempt to obtain a favorable decision”
This quote also gives me the impression that the Examiner is in favour of the Complainant.
It is obvious that both my and the Complainant’s points are given in order to obtain a favourable decision for ourselves.
I believe that my point in question is valid, and that is why I mentioned it.
It is true that the Complainant must have been aware that I was awarded the Domain only two days from the case submission; yet, they repeatedly used “No Website Visible” as an excuse for their case.
———-
7) >>”The Examiner finds this statement totally inconsistent, since the sole fact that email addresses planned to be sold by the Respondent contain the domain MITTAL which happens to be the name of a company and a registered trademark, does immediately create an association and a confusion with the owner of the trademark that cannot be allowed.”
Once again, at no point did I see the Examiner consider the fact that Mittal is also a fairly common name, and that there are probably many other CEOs/Leaders carrying that name.
———-
8) >>“Moreover, and again fulfilling the duty of exhausting the search for information to establish whether the complaint could be an abusive one, the Examiner conducted a whois search of the domain Mittal.ceo and immediately received the following prompt: ““Andrew Davis” is associated with about 609 other domains”. In the present case, the Examiner considers that holding such a large portfolio of domain names is an indicia of bad faith”
I do not see how the number of domains I may possibly own could be used to COMPLETELY throw out the fact that the Complainant made a misleading (abusive) statement, in saying my website is parked and not in use, when the Domain is only 2 days old.
Also, as I mentioned before, I only own a Maximum of 170 Domains.
Additionally, I have NEVER Sold, Traded or Rented out a Domain name in my life.
I have also never been involved in any Trademark dispute before.
So that excuse seems quite biased to me.
====================
In conclusion, I have no problem accepting a loss in this case, if it is properly due.
However, I find that the “Evidence” used against me in this case, does not meet the URS requirements of being “CLEAR and CONVINCING”.
It is definitely not a “Clear-Cut cases of Infringement” in my honest opinion.
Anyway, it was just a $100 loss; not a big deal.
I’ll just learn from this experience, move on, and try to offer services on my remaining .CEO sites, in such a way that it cannot cause any possible confusion with a Trademarked name.
—–
Sincerely,
-Andrew Davis
http://andrewdavis.ceo/
I also want to mention this, since I have been recently accused of being a “Cybersquatter” on other websites.
1) >>”Cybersquatting is the act of registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else. The cybersquatter then offers to sell the domain to the person or company who owns a trademark contained within the name at an inflated price.”
I have not registered any domains in “bad faith”, nor have I committed any of the acts described above.
I fully understand if some people may consider my actions as “Undesirable”; however it is not “Cybersquatting”.
Also, I am barely even a “Domainer”, as some have referred to me as.
>>” Domain name speculators are sometimes known as Domainers.”
”Domain name speculation is the practice of identifying and registering or acquiring Internet domain names with the intent of selling them later for a profit.”
I have NEVER sold a Domain Name in my life yet. All Domains I have ever purchased, have been used in some valid Business/Project of mine, or that of a client.
It is always possible that I “May” sell off a number of these .CEO Domains that I purchased, if I find the offer to be quite profitable. However, doing so is not my First and major intention for this project.
—–
2) When I came up with the idea for this project, I actually had ABSOLUTELY NO intention of registering any Trademarked names. I’ve always tried to stay away from Trademarked domains, when possible.
However, the majority of “Good” .CEO domains EACH cost around $1000.
Andrew.ceo, Bob.ceo, James.ceo, John.ceo, Mark.ceo, Michael.ceo, Peter.ceo, Richard.ceo,Smith.ceo, Thomas.ceo, etc…
By the time I paid for x20 Premium .CEO Domains, I had already spent $20,000, out of the $30,000 budget I allocated for this project.
So I decided to “Mix” my collection of names with some cheaper ones, costing $100 Each, in order to have a decent distribution of names.
Keep in mind that the .CEO Premium list is HUGE! There are over 47,000 Premium names on that list.
So just about EVERY very common First or Last name, is on that Premium list.
My options were then to:
a) Take some uncommon names at $100, which would probably not drive any Traffic or Sales of my service, to me.
or
b) Take some names that are “Popular” in today’s culture (also at $100), such as the names of wealthy families, and be more likely to draw traffic and sales in to my sites.
So I opted to spend my remaining $10,000 on the more logical (profit-wise) option.
It was not at all my intention to target Trademarked names.
Also, as I mentioned earlier, so many common names as well, triggered a Trademark notice; even my First and Last Name, “Andrew” and “Davis”, both showed my Trademark warnings, when trying to register them.
So that makes it a bit hard to build a reasonable Portfolio of First/Last names, when every other name gives you a TM notice. It’s hard to know which notices should be taken very seriously.
It would be nice if ICANN and those in charge of these gTLD operations consider some of the points I listed here.
—–
Sincerely,
-Andrew Davis
http://andrewdavis.ceo/
In my honest opinion, this was a very unfair move from URS. I can’t believe there are arbitrators like URS to make justice, but when they have to take action, they do it in a biased way.
I looked up myself, and I can see the whois says “Andrew Davis is associated with about 609 other domains”. However, URS are so dumb that can’t even realize how many people named “Andrew Davis” exist in the world…
Over 1000 I can find on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/search/str/andrew%20davis/users-named – I see that some are system administrators and similar, those might own a few domains as well.
And I don’t agree with Andrew losing the domain because of the email service he has. A Mittal utilizing such an email address is completely fair and legal in my opinion… there wouldn’t be any confusion about trademarks. So if I own Peter.ceo, and there is a trademark named Peter, will I lose my domain just because my emails can be mistaken with the trademark? That seems just a dumb excuse for Mittal winning.
Sincerely,
Peter