DECISION

 

Copart, Inc. v. samba sidibe

Claim Number: FA2406002104029

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Copart, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Rob LeBlanc of Haynes and Boone, LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is samba sidibe ("Respondent"), Maryland, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <copartafrica.com>, registered with FastDomain 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 June 26, 2024. Forum received payment on June 26, 2024.

 

On June 27, 2024, FastDomain Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <copartafrica.com> domain name is registered with FastDomain Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. FastDomain Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the FastDomain 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 June 28, 2024, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 18, 2024 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@copartafrica.com. Also on June 28, 2024, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On July 19, 2024, 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 formal response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, Copart, Inc., is an industry leader of online vehicle auction and remarketing services with operations worldwide, including throughout Africa. Complainant has specific websites dedicated to providing information on vehicles and vehicle shipments to African countries such as South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria, and Ghana.

 

Complainant has rights in the COPART mark through numerous trademark registrations, including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") and the Organisation Africaine de la Propriété Intellectuelle ("OAPI"). Complainant also owns and uses the domain name <copart.com> in connection with its online vehicle auction and transport services. Respondent's <copartafrica.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's COPART mark.

 

Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <copartafrica.com> domain name since Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's COPART mark and there is no evidence to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by that name. Additionally, Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent is using the domain name in connection with a website purporting to offer online vehicle auction services identical to those offered by Complainant. The website does not contain any disclaimer of association or affiliation with Complainant and, even if it did, it would not cure the intentional misrepresentation that is occurring.

 

Respondent registered the <copartafrica.com> domain name in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the COPART mark and uses it in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant's mark and to divert Internet users from Complainant's legitimate sites for Respondent's own commercial gain. This constitutes evidence of bad faith registration and use of the domain name under Policy ¶4(b)(iv). Moreover, Respondent's registration and use of the domain name constitutes bad faith disruption of Complainant's legitimate business purpose under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) because the website was intended to divert Internet users away from Complainant's own websites to Respondent's website, and therefore poses risks of confusion to Complainant's loyal customers.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding.

 

On June 29, 2024 Forum received an email from Respondent stating in substance:

"This is my domaine name and l own it. My company name is not Copart which is their domain name. Mine is COPARTAFRICA. They are not the same."

 

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 COPART mark through numerous registrations, including with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 3,941,221, registered on April 5, 2011) and the OAPI (Reg. No. 117596, registered on December 11, 2020).

 

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 of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 1.7.

 

The Panel accepts Respondent's contention that his <copartafrica.com> domain name is not the same as Complainant's COPART mark. However, the Panel finds the domain name to be confusingly similar to the mark, only differing by the addition of the geographic term "Africa", which does nothing to distinguish the domain name from the mark, and the inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"), which may be ignored. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429.

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e.

 

(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 <copartafrica.com> domain name was registered on February 26, 2023, many years after Complainant has shown that its COPART mark had become famous worldwide. It resolves to a website prominently displaying Complainant's COPART mark, followed by AFRICA, and offering online vehicle auction and transport services of the kind provided by Complainant in many countries, including in Africa.

 

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 <copartafrica.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA 1849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent's informal communication to Forum is insufficient 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(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including:

(iii)         Respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv)        by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.

The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant's COPART mark when Respondent registered the <copartafrica.com> domain name and that Respondent did so primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of Complainant, a competitor. Further, that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source of Respondent's website and of the services promoted on that website.

 

This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

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

 

 

 

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated: July 21, 2024