DECISION

 

Steelcase Inc. v. Inaky Zolivic / zolivic Inc

Claim Number: FA2603002210131

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Steelcase Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Matthew Passmore of Cobalt LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Inaky Zolivic / zolivic Inc ("Respondent"), Colorado, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <steelcaser.com> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with NameCheap, 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.

 

David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 12, 2026; Forum received payment on March 12, 2026.

 

On March 16, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <steelcaser.com> 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 March 16, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 6, 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@steelcaser.com. Also on March 16, 2026, 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 April 7, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges:

 

That it is a global leader in the office furniture industry, founded in 1912 and headquartered in Grand Rapids, Michigan, with over 11,300 employees worldwide and fiscal 2024 revenue of approximately $3.2 billion. Complainant first began using STEELCASE as a trademark in 1920 and filed its first U.S. trademark application in 1947. The STEELCASE brand has, for more than a century, been synonymous with high-quality furnishings for office, educational, and healthcare institutions.

 

That it owns scores of trademark registrations for STEELCASE in the United States and around the world, including U.S. Reg. No. 534,526 (registered December 12, 1950, in Class 20 for metal filing cabinets, metal storage cases, metal office tables, metal office chairs, metal office desks and metal bookcases), U.S. Reg. No. 1,003,738 (registered February 4, 1975, in Class 20), U.S. Reg. No. 2,042,087 (registered March 4, 1997, in Class 20 for furniture), and U.S. Reg. No. 5,465,381 (registered May 8, 2018, in Class 35), among numerous others (collectively, the "STEELCASE Mark"). Complainant also registered its <steelcase.com> domain name on February 14, 1995.

 

That the Disputed Domain Name <steelcaser.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's STEELCASE Mark because it incorporates the STEELCASE mark in its entirety and simply adds the letter "r" to the end of STEELCASE. The addition of a single letter fails to sufficiently distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from Complainant's mark. Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on January 16, 2026, more than 30 years after Complainant registered <steelcase.com> and more than 100 years since Complainant first used the STEELCASE Mark in commerce.

 

That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the STEELCASE Mark or the Disputed Domain Name. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "Inaky Zolivic / zolivic Inc," and Respondent initially used a privacy registration service. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and has not been licensed or permitted to use the STEELCASE Mark. Respondent is currently using the Disputed Domain Name to send emails passing itself off as Complainant's employee in an attempt to defraud Complainant's legitimate business affiliates by soliciting fraudulent payments from an authorized dealer in South Korea. The Disputed Domain Name also resolves to a website hosting pay-per-click links to competing office furniture goods and services.

 

That Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Respondent is using the Domain Name and the STEELCASE Mark to impersonate Complainant and perpetrate an illegal scheme to defraud Complainant's authorized furniture dealers by sending scam emails soliciting fraudulent payments. Using a domain name to pass oneself off as another party to commit fraud is clear evidence of bad faith. Respondent has also concealed its identity using a privacy registration service, which is additional support for an inference of bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds the following:

 

Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for the STEELCASE mark in the United States and worldwide, with a portfolio spanning decades. The earliest registration is U.S. Reg. No. 534,526 (registered December 12, 1950, for metal office furniture). Complainant first used the STEELCASE mark in commerce in 1920 and filed its first U.S. trademark application in 1947. Complainant operates its business through a global network of independent dealers and over 11,300 employees, generating approximately $3.2 billion in fiscal 2024 revenue. Complainant's Class A Common Stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol SCS.

 

Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name <steelcaser.com> on January 16, 2026—more than 75 years after Complainant's first U.S. trademark registration for STEELCASE and more than 30 years after Complainant registered <steelcase.com>. The WHOIS information identifies the registrant as Inaky Zolivic / zolivic Inc of Lakewood, Colorado. Respondent initially used a privacy registration service provided by "Withheld for Privacy ehf."

 

The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website displaying pay-per-click links advertising office furniture goods and services that compete directly with Complainant's goods. Additionally, Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name to send fraudulent emails impersonating a member of the "Steelcase Regional Risk Management team," using an email address at the <steelcaser.com> domain, in an attempt to defraud Complainant's authorized dealer in South Korea by soliciting illicit payments.

 

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 allegations. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at para. 4.3; eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established rights in the STEELCASE mark through its extensive portfolio of trademark registrations, including U.S. Reg. No. 534,526 (registered December 12, 1950) and numerous subsequent registrations in the United States and internationally. Complainant has used the STEELCASE mark continuously in commerce since 1920.

 

The Disputed Domain Name <steelcaser.com> incorporates Complainant's STEELCASE mark in its entirety and simply adds the letter "r" to the end of STEELCASE. The addition of a single letter to a complainant's mark fails to sufficiently distinguish a domain name from the mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Steelcase Inc. v. "Lizeth Arzate", FA 2192443 (Forum Dec. 31, 2025) (the domain name <steelacase.com> is confusing similar to Complainant's STEELCASE mark as it merely inserts the letter "a" into complainant's STEELCASE mark); Steelcase Inc. v. Oracle Drizzle, FA 1945791 (Forum June 30, 2021) (the <steeicase.com> domain name is confusing similar to the STEELCASE mark as it consists of a minor misspelling of the STEELCASE mark, substituting an "i" for the "l" in the mark); Steelcase Inc. v. Remy Dorinville, FA 1769798 (Forum March 5, 2018) (<steelcsae.com> is confusingly similar to STEELCASE for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because it transposes the final "s" and the "a" to create a misspelling).

 

The gTLD ".com" is irrelevant to the confusing similarity analysis, as a TLD is a required technical element of every domain name. See WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 1.11.1.

 

The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's STEELCASE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, after which the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 2.1.

 

The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "Inaky Zolivic / zolivic Inc"—a name bearing no resemblance to the Disputed Domain Name or to Complainant's STEELCASE Mark. Moreover, Respondent initially concealed its identity behind a privacy registration service. Where a registrant's information is hidden, it may be inferred that Respondent is not commonly known by the mark. See CheapCaribbean.com, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA 1589962 (Forum Jan. 1, 2015) (in the absence of evidence the contrary, the listing only of a privacy service in WHOIS is evidence the Respondent is not commonly known by the domain address).

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and has never been licensed or permitted to use the STEELCASE Mark or any domain names incorporating the STEELCASE Mark.

 

Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name to host pay-per-click links advertising office furniture goods and services that compete directly with Complainant's goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See General Motors LLC v. Mike Lee, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) ("use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant's business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)"); Vance Int'l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Forum June 8, 2007) (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).

 

Furthermore, Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name to send fraudulent emails impersonating a member of the Steelcase Regional Risk Management team, using an email address at the <steelcaser.com> domain, in an attempt to defraud Complainant's authorized dealer in South Korea by inducing them to make illicit payments to Respondent. Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name to pass itself off as Complainant and conduct a fraudulent scheme constitutes attempted theft, is flagrantly illegal, and does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Thomas Webber / Chev Ronoil Recreational Sport Limited, FA 1661076 (Forum Mar. 15, 2016) (finding that the respondent using an email address to pass themselves off as an affiliate of Complainant was not a bona fide offering of goods or services and was not legitimate noncommercial or fair use); see also Blackstone TM L.L.C. v. Mita Irelant Ltd., FA 1314998 (Forum Apr. 30, 2010) (finding phishing for personal information is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate use pursuant to Policy).

 

Respondent has failed to file a Response and has not rebutted Complainant's prima facie case. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The STEELCASE mark has been in continuous use since 1920 and has been registered with the USPTO since 1950. Complainant's <steelcase.com> domain name has been registered since 1995. Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on January 16, 2026—more than a century after Complainant first used the STEELCASE mark in commerce. Given that Respondent is currently using the Disputed Domain Name and the STEELCASE Mark to commit fraud by impersonating Complainant's employee, it is clear that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's STEELCASE Mark prior to registering the Disputed Domain Name.

 

Respondent is currently using the Disputed Domain Name to impersonate Complainant and perpetrate a fraudulent scheme to defraud Complainant's authorized furniture dealers by sending scam emails soliciting fraudulent payments. Using a domain name to pass oneself off as another party to commit fraud is clear evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Microsoft Corporation v. Terrence Green / Whois Agent / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc., FA 1661030 (Forum Apr. 4, 2016) (finding that respondent's use of the disputed domain name to send fraudulent emails constituted bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iii)); Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (finding that using the disputed 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).

 

Additionally, Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name to host pay-per-click links advertising competing office furniture goods and services constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), as Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's STEELCASE Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website. See General Motors LLC v. Mike Lee, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant's business is evidence of bad faith).

 

Finally, Respondent's use of a privacy registration service to conceal its identity, in combination with the fraudulent phishing scheme, is additional support for a finding of bad faith. See K. HOV IP, II, Inc. v. Carolyn Poirier, FA 1929141 (Forum Feb. 18, 2021) (finding bad faith registration and use where respondent registered a domain name using a privacy registration service and false registration data in connection with a fraudulent phishing scheme).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <steelcaser.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated: April 8, 2026