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.