DECISION
Copart, Inc. v. adel korkis
Claim Number: FA2502002138991
PARTIES
Complainant is Copart, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Rob LeBlanc of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is adel korkis ("Respondent"), Florida, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <copartautos.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
PANEL
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 6, 2025. Forum received payment on February 6, 2025.
On February 6, 2025, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <copartautos.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 February 7, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 27, 2025 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@copartautos.com. Also on February 7, 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 February 28, 2025, 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, Copart, Inc., provides vehicle sellers with a range of services to process and sell salvage and clean title vehicles over the Internet using its patented virtual auction technology. For 43 years, Complainant has provided goods and services related to the resale of vehicles under the trademark COPART, including through the website "www.copart.com". Today, Complainant has more than 250 locations across 11 countries, including at least one location in every state in the USA, has over 265,000 vehicles up for auction every day, and has over 3 million vehicles sold per year with buyers in over 190 countries globally.
Complainant has rights in the well-known COPART word mark and the COPART logo design mark both at common law and through registrations in numerous countries around the world, including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). Complainant's COPART mark was recently held famous by Forum. See Copart, Inc. v. samba Sidibe, FA2406002104029 (July 21, 2024) ("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.").
Respondent's <copartautos.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's COPART marks.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <copartautos.com> domain name. Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name and is not affiliated with Complainant, nor has been authorized to use the COPART marks in any manner. Further, Respondent has not used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and has never made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Rather, Respondent uses the domain name in a manner that deceptively misdirects consumers to vehicle sales and auction-related third-party links – including pay-per-click links to competitors of Complainant.
It is clear that Respondent registered and is using the <copartautos.com> domain name in bad faith. The domain name provides links to third-party auction or vehicle sales websites that are in direct competition with Complainant. Respondent's use of the domain name to operate a rotating link farm and intentionally divert consumers away from Complainant's legitimate sites for Respondent's own commercial gain is evidence of bad faith.
Using a confusingly similar domain name in order to generate revenue for Respondent is bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Moreover, Respondent's promotion of Complainant's competitors through use of a confusingly similar domain name diverts and disrupts Complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
(i) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii)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 as 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 word and logo marks through registrations with the USPTO (e.g., COPART word, Reg. No. 3,941,221 registered on April 5, 2011, and COPART logo, Reg. No. 4,601,884, registered on September 9, 2014).
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 finds Respondent's <copartautos.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's COPART word mark and to the distinctive COPART element of Complainant's COPART logo mark, only differing by the addition of the word "autos" which is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's marks and instead evokes Complainant's business. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429.
Complainant has established this element.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
(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 <copartautos.com> domain name was registered on August 3, 2015, several years after the registration of Complainant's COPART word mark and 11 months after registration of its logo mark. It resolves to a GoDaddy parking page displaying pay-per-click links associated with third-party auction or vehicle sales websites, including from competitors of Complainant.
These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, indicate that Respondent's aim in registering the domain name was to profit from and exploit Complainant's trademark and 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 <copartautos.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (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". 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:
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.
The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant's business in the automobile industry and one or both of its COPART marks when Respondent registered the <copartautos.com> domain name and that, as the registrant of the domain name, Respondent is responsible for the pay-per-click links on the GoDaddy parking website. Hence the Panel finds Respondent to have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the GoDaddy parking website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the services promoted on that website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(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 <copartautos.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: March 1, 2025
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page