Schnleder.com

The timeline behind schnleder.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

DECISION Schneider National, Inc. v. Elton Ngele Claim Number: FA2601002197976 PARTIES Complainant is Schneider National, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Amanda L. DeFord of McGuireWoods LLP, Virginia, USA. Respondent is Elton Ngele ("Respondent"), France. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <schnleder.com>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB. 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 January 5, 2026; Forum received payment on January 5, 2026. On January 8, 2026, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <schnleder.com> domain name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HOSTINGER operations, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB 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 January 8, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 28, 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@schnleder.com. Also on January 8, 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 January 29, 2026, 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 Schneider National, Inc. has long been well-respected as a leader in logistics solutions, including those involving trucking and shipping. Complainant is considered among the top providers within its industry—both by customers and individuals who wish to work within the logistics solutions industry. The company's reputation is therefore well-known across the United States, and it continues to strengthen every day. To better protect its substantial investment and the goodwill embodied in those marks, Complainant has sought and obtained over the years multiple trademark registrations that include SCHNEIDER from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Respondent's business evidently involves registering domain names that create confusion with Complainant's well-known marks for Respondent's own financial gain, to disrupt Schneider's business, and in furtherance of criminal activities. Specifically, on December 12, 2025, Respondent registered the at-issue domain name, which is virtually identical to Complainant's SCHNEIDER marks and legitimate domain name and is therefore highly likely to deceive the public into mistakenly believing that emails sent using the <schnleder.com> are legitimate correspondence from Complainant and/or that the at-issue domain name is Complainant's legitimate URL for business activities in the United States. Respondent's Domain Name Is Confusingly Similar to Complainant's SCHNEIDER Marks. The at-issue domain name consists entirely of Complainant's SCHNEIDER mark, with the only difference being a subtle misspelling that transposes the 'i' and 'e' and replaces the 'i with a lower case 'l', which mimics what an uppercase 'I' looks like. This alone makes the domain name confusingly similar under the Policy. Similarly, the fact that the domain name consists entirely of a subtle misspelling of SCHNEIDER also makes it confusingly similar to the remainder of Complainant's SCHNEIDER marks, each of which include SCHNEIDER as the first and dominant element. The fact that the domain name also includes the gTLD does not change that conclusion as it is widely recognized that adding a gTLD is insufficient to distinguish a domain name from a mark. Respondent Has No Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name. Complainant has owned and used its SCHNEIDER brand for nearly 85 years, and it owns numerous registrations for the SCHNEIDER marks that make up that brand. Respondent is not commonly known by any name related to SCHNLEDER or SCHNEIDER. Respondent also is engaging in typosquatting by registering the domain name, which consists of a subtle misspelling of the SCHNEIDER. Typosquatting is evidence that Respondent has "a lack of rights or legitimate interests" in the domain name. Respondent's use of the domain name to host webpages without active content is further determinative of this issue. Finally, use of the domain name to send a fraudulent email in order to redirect payments intended for Schneider to Respondent's bank account is dispositive of the fact that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services, let alone a fair use, of the same. Respondent Has Registered and Used the Domain in Bad Faith. Complainant has consistently used its SCHNEIDER marks in the United States for multiple decades, and it owns valid, subsisting rights in those marks as evidenced by, among other things, its multiple federal registrations covering the same. The SCHNEIDER marks have no meaning other than as an identifier of Complainant and its goods and services. Accordingly, there can be little doubt that Respondent registered the domain name with Complainant, and its marks, squarely in mind. Any doubt that Respondent knew about Schneider's rights when Respondent registered the domain name is eliminated by the fact that Respondent has used the domain name to send at least one fraudulent email attempting to divert payments intended for Complainant to Respondent's bank account. Respondent's registration and use of the domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights therefore establishes bad faith. Moreover, the fact that the at-issue domain name consists entirely of a subtle misspelling of Complainant's well-known and well-respected SCHNEIDER marks demonstrates bad faith. Respondent's failure to host active content on webpages at the domain name also is independent evidence of bad faith under the Policy. Finally, Respondent's use of the domain name in furtherance of a criminal activity through which Respondent attempted to divert payments intended for Complainant to Respondent's bank account likewise establishes bad faith. Accordingly, taken as a whole, there can be little doubt that Respondent has acted in complete bad faith through the registration and use of the domain name. Respondent's actions fully justify transfer of the domain name to Complainant. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the SCHNEIDER trademark. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity. Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the SCHNEIDER trademark. Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to host email used to pass off as Complainant in furtherance of 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 SCHNEIDER trademark with the USPTO. Any of Complainant's relevant trademark registrations is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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 usTLD Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)) Respondent's at-issue domain name consists of a recognizable misspelled variant of Complainant's SCHNEIDER mark where the mark's letters "ei" are replaced with the letters "le." The domain name concludes with the ".com" top-level. The differences between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's SCHNEIDER mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SCHNEIDER trademark. See Acme Lift Company, L.L.C. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1607039 (Forum Apr. 11, 2015) (stating: "Where a respondent has created a domain name in an effort to visually deceive Internet users via a simple misspelling (and when such misspellings are visually similar to the mark), a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is appropriate."); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Administrator / Registry Services, LLC, FA 2038314 (Forum July 26, 2023)("The addition of a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).") 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, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances 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 Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and "Panels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name."). The WHOIS information for <schnleder.com> leads to identifying the domain name's registrant as "Elton Ngele" and there is nothing in the record that tends to prove that Respondent is otherwise known by the <schnleder.com> domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name). Respondent's <schnleder.com> domain name is used to host email pretending to come from one of Complainant's employees. Respondent's sham email is designed to deceive third parties regarding the email's source and thereby have the recipient direct funds intended for Complainant to an account controlled by Respondent. Such use of <schnleder.com> indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iv). 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 foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <schnleder.com>. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below, without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith. Respondent's at-issue domain name is used to host email @schnleder.com. Respondent, posing as an agent of Complainant, sends email from <schnleder.com> to trick its recipient into believing that the email is originating from Complainant. Respondent's bogus email redirects payments intended for Complainant to Respondent's account. Respondent's use of <schnleder.com> to pass itself off as Complainant so that it might swindle funds from third-parties demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <schnleder.com> under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Funding Circle Limited v. tim mcelwain / timmcelweain, FA 2003934 (Forum Aug. 4, 2022) ("Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to facilitate [a] phishing scheme designed to swindle funds from Complainant's customers. Such use of the confusingly similar domain name indicates Respondent's bad faith under the Policy."); see also, Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) ("Respondent uses the <abbuie.com> domain name to impersonate Complainant's CEO. Such use is undeniably disruptive to Complainant's business and demonstrates bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), and/or Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)"); see also 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 supported a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)). Next, Respondent engages in typosquatting. Respondent's domain name's second level is, as discussed above, a recognizable intentional misspelling of Complainant's SCHNEIDER trademark. Respondent's typosquatting, in itself, indicates bad faith registration and use of <schnleder.com>. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SCHNEIDER mark when Respondent registered <schnleder.com> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is evident given the mark's notoriety and given Respondent's use of the domain name in a phishing scheme whereby Respondent passes itself off as Complainant via fraudulent email. Respondent's registration and use of <schnleder.com> with knowledge of Complainant's rights in SCHNEIDER further shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <schnleder.com>. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 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 <schnleder.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: January 29, 2026 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.