DECISION

 

WINTERSTEIGER Holding AG v. Cecil Cadwell / wintesrteiger

Claim Number: FA2512002195877

 

PARTIES

Complainant is WINTERSTEIGER Holding AG ("Complainant"), represented by Scott J. Major of Millen, White, Zelano & Branigan, P.C., Virginia, USA. Respondent is Cecil Cadwell / wintesrteiger ("Respondent"), North Carolina, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The Domain Name at issue is <wintesrteiger.com>, registered with Tucows Domains Inc.

 

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.

 

Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on December 21, 2025. Forum received payment on December 21, 2025.

 

On December 22, 2025, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <wintesrteiger.com> Domain Name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains 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 December 23, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 12, 2026 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@wintesrteiger.com. Also on December 23, 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 January 13, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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 heads an international machinery and technology solutions group that offers a broad range of goods and services under the well-known mark WINTERSTEIGER. It has been using this mark through predecessors-in-interest continuously since 1953. Complainant's principal website is at "www.wintersteiger.com". It registered that domain name in 1997 and since has promoted its WINTERSTEIGER goods and services on the website at this address.

 

The <wintesrteiger.com> Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark WINTERSTEIGER. This is an obvious case of typosquatting on its face.

 

Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name. Respondent Cecil Caldwell alleges the term "wintesrteiger" is his organization name in an obvious attempt to manufacture a claim of legitimacy. However, research in the online corporate records of North Carolina (where Respondent is located) and Delaware (a popular State for incorporating) disclosed no business name or entity with "Wintesrteiger" in the name. Respondent could not be known by a name consisting in whole or in part of the wording "Wintesrteiger" (or "Wintersteiger") without authorization from Complainant. Respondent is not an agent or licensee of Complainant. Rather, Respondent is an individual typosquatter who is not commonly known by the Domain Name. The Domain Name is currently pointed to what appears to be a parking page promoting the website builder Zoho Sites. The only plausible explanation for Respondent's registration and use of the Domain Name is that it constitutes an unauthorized attempt to trade on Complainant's reputation and renown. This cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a non-commercial or fair use. Given the nature of the Domain Name, an obvious concern here is that Respondent plans to use it to host email in furtherance of a scheme to impersonate Complainant and possibly even defraud individuals into paying money to Respondent.

 

Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.

 

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

Complainant has shown that it has rights in the mark WINTERSTEIGER, including USPTO Registration No. 4,004,655, registered on August 2, 2011 for inter alia "Goods of metal, namely, general purpose metal storage units and metal ski storage racks", in International Class 6.

 

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 1.7.

 

The Panel finds Respondent's <wintesrteiger.com> Domain Name to be virtually identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's WINTERSTEIGER mark, only differing by reversing the order of the letters "r" and "s", which is insufficient to distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant's mark. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The <wintesrteiger.com> Domain Name was registered on November 5, 2025, more than ten years after the registration of Complainant's WINTERSTEIGER mark. It resolves to a website promoting website building with Zoho Sites.

 

These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <wintesrteiger.com> Domain Name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA 1849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is expressed in the conjunctive: "the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith".  

 

The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant and its WINTERSTEIGER mark when registering the <wintesrteiger.com> Domain Name, since the Domain Name is a typosquatted version of Complainant's mark. Typosquatting is independent evidence of bad faith registration and use of a domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Homer TLC, Inc. v. Artem Ponomarev, FA 1623825 (Forum July 20, 2015).

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

DECISION

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

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <wintesrteiger.com> Domain Name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated: January 14, 2026