DECISION

 

Steelcase Inc. v. Barbara Blue

Claim Number: FA2508002172115

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Steelcase Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Matthew Passmore of Cobalt LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Barbara Blue ("Respondent"), Kansas, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <steelcaseus.com>, registered with Register.com - Network Solutions, LLC.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 18, 2025; Forum received payment on August 18, 2025.

 

On August 18, 2025, Register.com - Network Solutions, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <steelcaseus.com> domain name is registered with Register.com - Network Solutions, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Register.com - Network Solutions, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Register.com - Network Solutions, LLC 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 August 19, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 8, 2025 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@steelcaseus.com. Also on August 19, 2025, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On September 9, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends in part as follows:

 

Complainant Steelcase Inc. a Michigan corporation, 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. Its portfolio of products includes a wide variety of design, furniture and technology innovations. Complainant operates a website located at <steelcase.com> and owns more than two hundred (200) trademark registrations for STEELCASE in the United States and around the world.

 

The domain name is confusingly similar to the STEELCASE marks. The <steelcaseus.com> domain name incorporates the STEELCASE mark in its entirety and adds the letters "us" – a common abbreviation of "United States". The <steelcaseus.com> domain name and Complainant's <steelcase.com> both use the ".com" top level domain (TLD). The addition of an abbreviation or common term to a protected mark in a disputed domain name fails to sufficiently distinguish that domain name from the mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Respondent registered the at-issue domain name long after Complainant first began using the STEELCASE mark and long after Complainant registered its <steelcase.com> domain name. Additionally, WHOIS information identifies the Respondent as "PERFECT PRIVACY, LLC." When a registrant's information is hidden, it may be inferred that Respondent is not commonly known by the mark. Furthermore, Respondent is neither making a bona fide offering of goods or services through the domain name, nor is Respondent making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Respondent uses Complainant's STEELCASE mark and the domain name to send emails passing itself off as Complainant in an attempt to defraud Complainant's business affiliates and inducing them to make illicit payments to Respondent. Respondent's use of the domain name to pass itself off as an employee of Complainant and conduct a dishonest and deceitful scheme constitutes fraud, theft, and is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent has not been using the domain name in any way that would give Respondent any legitimate rights in <steelcaseus.com>.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the STEELCASE mark.

 

Respondent has not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark.

 

Respondent registered the at-issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in STEELCASE.

 

Respondent uses the confusingly similar at-issue domain name to host email used to facilitate fraud.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

 

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.

 

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.  The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant shows that it registered its STEELCASE trademark with the USPTO as well as with multiple other bona fide trademark registrars worldwide. Any of Complainant's trademark registrations is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under the Policy. See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant's registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

The at-issue domain name contains Complainant's STEELCASE trademark, followed by the geographic acronym "US" and with all followed by the ".com" top-level. The differences between Respondent's <steelcaseus.com> domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <steelcaseus.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's STEELCASE mark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable 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.")

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)")

 

The WHOIS information for <steelcaseus.com> ultimately leads to the identity of the domain name's registrant as being "Barbara Blue" and the record before the Panel contains no affirmative evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the at-issue domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by <steelcaseus.com> for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Instron Corp. v. Kaner, FA 768859 (Forum Sept. 21, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names because the WHOIS information listed "Andrew Kaner c/o Electromatic a/k/a Electromatic Equip't" as the registrant and there was no other evidence in the record to suggest that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names in dispute).

 

Respondent uses the confusingly similar <steelcaseus.com> domain name to host email that facilitates an email phishing scheme. Respondent's use of the confusingly similar domain name for such purpose indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) regarding the at-issue domain name. See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding the respondent's use of the disputed domain names to send fraudulent emails purportedly from agents of complainant to be neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).

 

Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <steelcaseus.com>. 

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith.

 

Respondent capitalized on the confusion it created between the at-issue domain name and Complainant's trademark. Respondent sent an email originating from <steelcaseus.com> designed to impersonate one of Complainant's actual employees. The email was intended to induce associates of Complainant receiving such email, and believing they were dealing with Complainant, to divulge "outstanding invoices" concerning Complainant to Respondent. The fact that Respondent engaged in identity theft and email fraud using the <steelcaseus.com> domain name explicitly demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the <steelcaseus.com> domain name. See Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that using the at-issue domain name as an e-mail address to pass itself off as the complainant in a phishing scheme is evidence of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the STEELCASE mark when it registered <steelcaseus.com> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge is apparent given STEELCASE's worldwide notoriety and given Respondent's use of the domain name to pretend that email originating with Respondent is from an employee of Complainant. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in STEELCASE further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum September 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name).

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <steelcaseus.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: September 10, 2025