Steelcaseinc.online

The timeline behind steelcaseinc.online

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.

UDRP Decision: Claim Number FA2607002235442 DECISION Steelcase Inc. v. rio tree Claim Number: FA2607002235442 PARTIES Complainant is Steelcase Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Matthew Passmore of Cobalt LLP, California, USA. Respondent is rio tree ("Respondent"), Ohio, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <steelcaseinc.online> (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 on July 28, 2026. On July 29, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <steelcaseinc.online> 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"). Complainant submitted an Amended Complaint on July 30, 2026, following the Registrar's disclosure of the underlying registrant information. On July 31, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 20, 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@steelcaseinc.online. Respondent failed to submit a Response by the August 20, 2026 deadline, and Forum so advised the parties in its notification of the Panel's appointment. On August 21, 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, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. 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, serving customers through a network of independent dealers at more than 750 locations, with over 11,300 employees worldwide and fiscal 2025 revenue of approximately $3.2 billion. Complainant's Class A Common Stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol SCS. Complainant first began using STEELCASE as a trademark in 1920, and for more than a century the brand has been synonymous with high-quality furnishings for office, educational, and healthcare institutions, and home use. That it owns more than two hundred trademark registrations for STEELCASE in the United States and around the world (collectively, the "STEELCASE Mark"), including U.S. Reg. No. 534,526, registered December 12, 1950, U.S. Reg. No. 1,003,738, registered February 4, 1975, U.S. Reg. No. 2,042,087, registered March 4, 1997, and U.S. Reg. No. 5,465,381, registered May 8, 2018. Complainant filed its first U.S. trademark application for STEELCASE in 1947. Complainant also registered its <steelcase.com> domain name on February 14, 1995 and operates its website at that address. That the Disputed Domain Name <steelcaseinc.online> is confusingly similar to the STEELCASE Mark because it incorporates the coined STEELCASE Mark in its entirety and merely adds "inc," the common abbreviation for "incorporated," together with the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".online" in place of the ".com" of Complainant's own domain name. Neither addition distinguishes the Disputed Domain Name from the STEELCASE Mark. That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on June 30, 2026, more than 105 years after Complainant first began using the STEELCASE Mark, and the WHOIS data published at the time of filing identified the registrant only by a privacy service. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and has never been licensed or permitted to use the STEELCASE Mark or any domain name incorporating it, and Complainant can find no evidence that Respondent holds trademark or service mark rights in STEELCASE anywhere in the world. The Disputed Domain Name does not resolve to a live website but to a generic registrar landing page, which is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. That Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Respondent is passively holding the Disputed Domain Name, thereby disrupting Complainant's business, and had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant's well-known, coined STEELCASE Mark when it registered the Disputed Domain Name. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds the following: A USPTO registration record in evidence shows Complainant's early registration of the STEELCASE Mark, U.S. Reg. No. 534,526, registered December 12, 1950 for metal office furniture. On the uncontested record, Complainant owns numerous later registrations for the mark in the United States and in jurisdictions including Canada, Mexico, the European Union, China, Japan, and Australia, has used the STEELCASE Mark in commerce since 1920, serves customers through independent dealers at more than 750 locations with over 11,300 employees worldwide, and generated approximately $3.2 billion in revenue in fiscal 2025 as a company listed on the New York Stock Exchange. A WHOIS record in evidence shows that Complainant registered its <steelcase.com> domain name on February 14, 1995. On that basis, the Panel finds the STEELCASE Mark, a coined term, to be distinctive of Complainant and widely known in the furniture trade. The WHOIS record in evidence shows that the Disputed Domain Name was created on June 30, 2026 and that the registration data then published disclosed no registrant name, the registration having been made through a privacy service, Withheld for Privacy ehf, of Reykjavik, Iceland. The Registrar's verification of July 29, 2026 discloses Respondent, rio tree of Dayton, Ohio, as the registrant, confirms that the Disputed Domain Name is under registrar lock, and confirms that the language of the registration agreement is English. A screenshot in the record, captured on July 24, 2026, shows that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to no website of Respondent's own but to a page maintained by the Registrar stating that the domain has been suspended pending verification of the registrant's contact details. The WHOIS record likewise shows that the name servers assigned to the Disputed Domain Name are the Registrar's verification-failure placeholders. Nothing in the record evidences any use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name at any time since its registration. On the uncontested record, Complainant has not licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the STEELCASE Mark, Respondent has no affiliation with Complainant, and nothing in the record suggests that Respondent trades, or is known to anyone, as "Steelcase Inc." or "steelcaseinc." 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 Overview 3.1 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant's registrations of the STEELCASE Mark with the USPTO, the earliest dating from 1950, establish its rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 1.2.1. The Disputed Domain Name reproduces the STEELCASE Mark in its entirety and appends the letters "inc," the standard abbreviation for "incorporated" and the corporate designation appearing in Complainant's own name, Steelcase Inc. The second-level domain thus reads as Complainant's corporate name itself, and the added abbreviation does nothing to distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the mark. See Steelcase Inc. v. Francisco Morales / Choice Furniture Source, FA 2208706 (Forum Mar. 27, 2026) (eight domain names wholly incorporating the STEELCASE mark and adding a generic term or terms held confusingly similar); Steelcase Inc. v. Barbara Blue, FA 2172115 (Forum Sept. 10, 2025) (<steelcaseus.com> confusingly similar to STEELCASE, "us" being a common abbreviation for "United States"). The gTLD ".online" is disregarded under the first element as a standard technical requirement of registration. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 1.11.1. The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the STEELCASE Mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, at which point the burden of production shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence that it does. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 2.1. The registrant of record is "rio tree," a name bearing no resemblance to the Disputed Domain Name, and until the Registrar's verification the published WHOIS disclosed only a privacy service. Where the published WHOIS identifies only a privacy service and nothing else in the record indicates otherwise, it may be inferred that a respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. See CheapCaribbean.com, Inc. v. Moniker Privacy Services, FA 1589962 (Forum Jan. 1, 2015). Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the STEELCASE Mark, and Respondent, by defaulting, has offered nothing to the contrary. Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Nor does the record disclose any use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). On the evidence of record, the Disputed Domain Name has resolved only to a suspension page maintained by the Registrar. See Cardinal Health Technologies, LLC v. David Leo / cardinalhealthlabs, FA 2225142 (Forum June 26, 2026) ("The Domain Name is inactive, resolving to a parked page maintained by the Registrar, which by itself does not show a bona fide offering of goods and services."). The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on June 30, 2026, more than seventy-five years after Complainant's earliest U.S. registration issued and more than a century after Complainant began using the STEELCASE Mark in commerce. The string Respondent chose is not a plausible coincidence: it couples a coined mark with the corporate designation "inc," reproducing Complainant's own name, Steelcase Inc., in full. The Panel finds, on this record, that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the STEELCASE Mark and with Complainant in mind. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024) (actual knowledge of another's trademark rights suffices to establish bad faith and may be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the respondent's use of the domain name); Steelcase Inc. v. Inaky Zolivic / zolivic Inc, FA 2210131 (Forum Apr. 8, 2026) (finding actual knowledge of the STEELCASE mark, in continuous use since 1920, from the record there). To the extent Complainant relies also on constructive knowledge, the Panel does not rest its finding on that basis; actual knowledge is established on this record. As to use, at no time shown by the record has the Disputed Domain Name resolved to any content of Respondent's own. Non-use does not preclude a finding of bad faith use where, in the totality of the circumstances, no good faith use by the respondent is plausible. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶ 3.3. The circumstances here support that inference. The STEELCASE Mark is a coined term, distinctive of Complainant and in use for more than a century; the Disputed Domain Name reproduces Complainant's corporate name in full, leaving no use by Respondent that would not misrepresent an association with Complainant; Respondent has defaulted rather than offer any explanation; and the Registrar has suspended the Disputed Domain Name pending verification of the registrant's contact details. On these facts the Panel draws that inference. See Regions Bank v. Darla atkins, FA 1786409 (Forum June 20, 2018) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) where the domain name was used to host an inactive website). Complainant's further characterization of the passive holding as disrupting its business adds nothing on this record; bad faith is established on the grounds stated. 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 <steelcaseinc.online> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David L. Kreider, Panelist Dated: August 21, 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.