Steelcase Inc. v. Candido Miguel Diaz Alfonso
Claim Number: FA2206001998892
Complainant is Steelcase Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Jessica Tam of Cobalt LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Candido Miguel Diaz Alfonso (“Respondent”), Spain.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <steelcase.work>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 2, 2022; the Forum received payment on June 2, 2022.
On June 2, 2022, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <steelcase.work> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On June 3, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 23, 2022 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@steelcase.work. Also on June 3, 2022, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. Respondent did however send an email to the Forum, see below.
On July 2, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it engages in the business of design, selling and manufacturing of office furniture, technology products and services. It is a global leader in the office furniture industry, delivering a better work experience to its customers by providing products, services, and insights into the ways people work. Founded in 1912, headquartered in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and world renowned for its quality furniture innovations and developments, Complainant serves customers through a network of independent dealers and over 10,000 employees worldwide. Complainant and its subsidiaries have dealers in approximately 800 locations and manufacturing facilities in over 15 international locations. Complainant first began using STEELCASE as a trademark around 1920. Over the years, the STEELCASE trademark has become known as a brand signifying quality built products, and numerous trademark registrations have been obtained for STEELCASE by Complainant. The first U.S. trademark application dates to the 1940s. Complainant’s fiscal 2022 revenue was approximately $2.8 billion. Complainant asserts rights in the STEELCASE mark through its registration of the mark in the United States in 1950.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical to its STEELCASE mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the “.work” top-level domain (“gTLD”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the STEELCASE mark, nor is Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name. Further, Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name redirects to Complainant’s legitimate website, and Respondent used the disputed domain name in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme, by impersonating an employee of Complainant in order to defraud Complainant’s customers. Specifically, one of Complainant’s customers received an email from someone representing themselves as Maria Esther Blanco Juarez, with an email address at mblancoJ@steelcase.work. The email contained a signature line and footers claiming the sender is Complainant’s employee. Respondent asked the customer to make payment to a specific bank account. Later, Complainant’s customer received a follow-up email asking when payment will be made to the account. The bank account in question is not owned, nor controlled, nor associated with Complainant. Respondent created the bank account under a false name to perpetuate its scheme to impersonate Complainant for the sake of defrauding Complainant’s customers. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name in furtherance of a fraudulent email phishing scheme. Respondent used a privacy service to conceal its identity when registering the disputed domain name. Respondent had actual notice of Complainant’s rights in the STEELCASE mark, evidenced by the attempts to pass off as Complainant and the longstanding use of the STEELCASE mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. In its email to the Forum, Respondent states, in pertinent part: “Thanks for reaching out and bringing this up. I can confirm that I have purchased this domain as I'm trying to launch a startup but I had no idea it would bring me here. I do not remember to yet purchase an e-mail package for the domain name and I am happy to shut it down for now. I suspect my information got leaked and a third party may have accessed it without my knowledge and consent.”
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact. The Panel notes, obiter dictum, that Complainant appears to have provided sufficient evidence to prove its allegations.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
The Panel interprets Respondent’s email to the Forum as consent to transfer the disputed domain name. Thus, in the present case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.
See Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).
The Panel notes, obiter dictum, that Respondent’s unproven allegation that the domain name was hijacked would not constitute a defense against Complainant’s allegations.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy. However the Panel notes, obiter dictum, that Complainant appears to have satisfied its burden of proof for this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy. However the Panel notes, obiter dictum, that Complainant appears to have satisfied its burden of proof for this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy. However the Panel notes, obiter dictum, that Complainant appears to have satisfied its burden of proof for this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, it is Ordered that the <steelcase.work> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: July 5, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page