DECISION

 

Copart, Inc. v. Sergey Krivoshein

Claim Number: FA2601002200772

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Copart, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Rob LeBlanc of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is Sergey Krivoshein ("Respondent"), Thailand.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <copart.live>, registered with Spaceship, Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Steven M. Levy as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 20, 2026; Forum received payment on January 20, 2026.

 

On January 22, 2026, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <copart.live> domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Spaceship, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, 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 January 26, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 17, 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@copart.live. Also on January 26, 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 February 18, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy 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 is a publicly traded company with a market capitalization of around $40 billion (USD) that is an industry leader of online vehicle auction services with operations worldwide. Copart is a premier destination for the resale of vehicles, and it 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, Copart has provided goods and services related to the resale of vehicles under the trademark COPART, including through the website <copart.com>, among others. Today, Copart 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 owns United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") registrations for the COPART mark including Reg. No. 3941221 dated April 5, 2011; Reg. No. 4601885 dated September 9, 2014; and Reg. No. 4601884 dated September 9, 2014.

 

The <copart.live> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the COPART mark as it incorporates the entirety of the mark and adds only the ".live" TLD.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name and it resolves the domain name to a for sale page offering it at a price that is far in excess of its out-of-pocket registration costs.

 

The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where Respondent knew of Complainant's mark and has offered it for sale at an inflated price.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

-       Complainant has demonstrated its ownership of rights to the COPART trademark and the <copart.live> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark;

-       Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name as it is not commonly known thereby, and it offers the domain name for sale at a high price which is most likely based on Complainant's mark; and

-       Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith based on its offering of the domain name for sale as noted above.

 

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 asserts rights in its COPART mark through its registration with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Here, Complainant provides copies of its USPTO registration certificates. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the COPART mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Next, Complainant argues that Respondent's <copart.live> domain name is confusingly similar to its mark because the disputed domain name incorporates the COPART mark in its entirety and only adds the ".live" TLD. The use of an entire trademark and the addition only of a TLD is not sufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from an asserted mark. Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) ("There can be no question that Respondent's domain name <ROLLERBLADE.NET> is identical to Complainant's trademark 'Rollerblade', and this Panel so finds. It is already well established that the specific top level of the domain name such as 'net' or 'com' does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar."). The Panel thus finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's 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 under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("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.").

 

Complainant first argues that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name nor has Respondent been given license or consent to use the COPART mark. In considering this issue, WHOIS information may be reviewed to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information bore no resemblance to the domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant's mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). The WHOIS record for the disputed domain name, as revealed by the concerned Registrar after the Complaint was filed, identify Respondent as "Sergey Krivoshein" and Respondent has not participated in these proceedings to claim that it is known otherwise. Further, Complainant specifically states that it "has never consented to Respondent's use of the Copart Marks, and indeed, Respondent never requested Complainant's permission to use the Copart Marks" and Respondent has not made any claim to the contrary. Therefore, the Panel finds insufficient evidence upon which to conclude that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it has been granted any rights relevant thereto under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant further contends that Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. It provides evidence that Respondent is offering the <copart.live> domain name for sale at its Registrar's auction site. Although not made directly to a complainant, a general offer to sell a domain name that copies a distinctive and well-known trademark may still be evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See 3M Company v. Kabir S Rawat, FA 1725052 (Forum May 9, 2017) (holding that "a general offer for sale… provides additional evidence that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests" in a disputed domain name). Here, Complainant provides a screenshot of the GoDaddy auction website showing the message "copart.live is for sale!" and "Get a price in less than 24 hours" followed by a contact form. Complainant submitted this form and then received the following message from a GoDaddy broker: "Thanks for your inquiry into the domain copart.live. Based on many criteria, the current owner has determined a value of $3,888 USD. They are open to offers, please don't hesitate to make one." While the Panel is fully aware that registrar brokers do not always represent the intention of domain name owners and further that domain name investment is a legitimate pursuit when no trademark is targeted, it also notes that Complainant's mark is distinctive, there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that it is a dictionary word, and, as noted with more detail in the next section, there is some evidence that it is a well-known mark, at least within its field of business. Finally, Respondent has not participated in these proceedings and so it does not provide any explanation for its registration of the disputed domain name. Thus, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent's offering the domain name for sale is not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). 

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent registered the <copart.live> domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the COPART mark. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), actual knowledge is generally sufficient as a foundation upon which an argument of bad faith may be built, and this may be established through the reputation of a complainant's mark, the use to which a disputed domain name is put, and other facts that indicate a respondent is specifically targeting a complainant's mark rather than using the domain name in some other manner. See AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. Ken Belden, FA 1815011 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) ("Complainant contends that Respondent's knowledge can be presumed in light of the substantial fame and notoriety of the AUTOZONE mark, as well as the fact that Complainant is the largest retailer in the field. The Panel here finds that Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant's mark, demonstrating bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). Complainant asserts that its COPART mark has become well known through its use over many years and in many countries. In support, it provides a screenshot of the "About Us" page on its <copart.com> that states it has "265k+ vehicles available online every day", "3M+ vehicles sold per year", "190+ countries we have buyers in", "250+ locations", and "11 countries we operate in". It also issues regular press releases on its business and has presented at the Baird Global Technology & Services Conference, a meeting in New York City of institutional investors, private equity firms, and management from over 300 public and private companies. Also submitted is a Wikipedia page on Complainant website which mentions Complainants history back to its founding in 1982 and its range of branded vehicle selling platforms including BID4U, CashForCars.com, CrashedToys, DRIVE Auto Auctions, and National Powersport Auctions. While it would have been helpful to the Panel had Complainant submitted more robust evidence of its brand reputation, the Panel notes that the <copart.live> domain name's second level is identical to Complainant's own <copart.com> website's second level, is offered for sale as a "Premium" domain name, and Respondent has not contested Complainant's assertion or submitted any opposing evidence by failing to participate in this case. Based upon a preponderance of the evidence before it, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of, and with an intent to target Complainant's rights in the COPART mark.

 

Next, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <copart.live> domain name in bad faith by offering it for sale at an inflated price. Under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i), generally offering a disputed domain name for sale at a price in excess of its out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name may demonstrate bad faith registration and use. See Capital One Financial Corp. v. haimin xu, FA 1819364 (Forum Jan. 8, 2019) ("A general offer to sell a domain name can be evidence the respondent intended to make such an offer at the time it registered the name, supporting a finding of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(i)."). As noted in the previous section, Complainant submits screenshots of the Registrar for-sale page soliciting offers to purchase the domain name and the message from a GoDaddy broker mentioning a price of USD $3,888. There is no evidence of Respondent's out-of-pocket costs here or that it purchased the disputed domain name from a prior owner after its initial creation on June 5, 2025. However, the stated price is significantly higher than typical domain name registration fees charged by registrars. Further, the for-sale page displays a notation indicating that <copart.live> is a "Premium" domain name which could indicate that Respondent paid a higher-than-usual price for it (though there is no evidence to support such a claim and this Panel cannot engage in such speculation) or it could suggest recognition that it is based on Complainant's trademark. As Respondent has not participated in this case, by a preponderance of the evidence before it, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).

 

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 <copart.live> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Steven M. Levy, Panelist

Dated: February 20, 2026