DECISION

 

Copart, Inc. v. Chad Moston / Elite Media Group

Claim Number: FA2602002203626

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Copart, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Rob LeBlanc of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is Chad Moston / Elite Media Group ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <coparrt.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

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.

 

James Bridgeman SC as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 4, 2026; Forum received payment on February 4, 2026.

 

On February 4, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <coparrt.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 5, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 25, 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@coparrt.com.

 

Also on February 5, 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 26, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 claims rights in the COPART trademark and service mark established by its ownership of the portfolio of registered marks described below and extensive use of the mark in its business providing online vehicle auction and related services.

 

Complainant asserts that for 43 years, it has provided goods and services related to the resale of vehicles under the trademark COPART, including through the website <www.copart.com>, among others.

 

Today, Complainant provides services at more than 250 locations across 11 countries, including at least one location in every state in the USA. It 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.

 

Firstly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's COPART mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, adding only an extra letter "R" and the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.com>.

 

Complainant argues that Respondent is engaged in typosquatting, a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark or other identifying mark such as a domain name and then registers the resulting string in a domain name. The registrant hopes that internet users will: 1) inadvertently type the malformed string when searching for content related to the domain name's target trademark and/or, 2) in viewing the domain name will confuse such domain name with its target mark.

 

Here, Respondent merely added an additional "r" into Complainant's mark in forming the disputed domain name.

 

In typosquatting cases such as this, panelists consistently hold that repeating one or more letters and adding the top-level domain extension, does not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name at issue and the complainant's mark. See for example Copart, Inc. v. Nguyễn Văn Lư, FA 2153114 (Forum June 11, 2025) (holding the domain name ccopart.com confusingly similar to Complainant's COPART trademark and an "example of typosquatting").

 

Complainant adds that it is well established that the gTLD extension <.com> does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant's mark. See Red Hat Inc v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name was identical to Complainant's mark RED HAT mark and the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).

 

Complainant secondly alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing that

·       there is no evidence to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by COPART or COPARRT, or that Respondent operates a business or other organization under these names. See Tercent Inc. v. Yi, FA 139720 (Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (finding that the WHOIS information, and its failure to imply that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, is a factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply);

·       rather, Respondent's identity appears privacy protected (i.e., Registration Private);

·       Respondent cannot have acquired any rights to the disputed domain name because it is registered through a WhoIs privacy service;

·       since Respondent has refused to publicly associate itself with the disputed domain name, it is impossible for Respondent to have acquired any rights or secondary meaning in the name, see Priceline.com, Inc. v. Private Registration / WhoisGuardService.com, FA 1686935 (Forum Sept. 19, 2016) (holding that Respondent had "not acquired any rights to the domain name because it was registered through a WHOIS privacy service.");

·       Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the COPART mark or the confusingly similar iteration "COPARRT", and indeed, Respondent never requested Complainant's permission to use the COPART mark;

·       Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor has Respondent ever made any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name;

·       rather, as shown in the screen capture exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, directs users to a rotating series of third-party websites under what is sometimes known as the "Automatic Rapid Redirection to Malware." ("ARRM").

 

Complainant adds that numerous prior panels established under the Policy, have had the opportunity to evaluate whether ARRM's instill rights or legitimate interests and have found that such use is generally not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, see also CenturyLink Intellectual Property LLC v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Protection Domain, WIPO Case D2017-0144 (WIPO March 17, 2017) (respondent not using the disputed domain names in a bona fide manner where the respondent's websites are alleged to redirect visitors to a rotating number of websites that either contain PPC links, advertisements for the Complainant or a competitor of the Complainant, or sites allegedly designed for phishing or distribution of malware.).

 

Therefore it is contended that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

Further still, Complainant submits that, as shown in a screen capture exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, in some instances, the disputed domain name resolves to a web page that offers to sell the disputed domain name for premium price of $849. Complainant submits that the price asked far exceeds the out-of-pocket expenses associated with the disputed domain name; and that it has been consistently held that using a domain name at issue that is confusingly similar to a complainant's well-known mark to sell it for more than out-of-pocket expenses does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

 

In this regard, Complainant cites Securian Financial Group, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 2075487 (Forum Jan. 10, 2024) ("The Panel notes that the use of the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to Complainant's well-known mark to sell it for the amount of out-of-pocket expense does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or any legitimate non-commercial or fair use.").

 

Thirdly, Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

Complainant argues that in this instance, the disputed domain name, which is almost identical to the COPART mark, was registered in January 2023, which is decades after Complainant's mark had become world famous via extensive global sales, with revenues 2023, amounting to $3.9 billion.

 

Thus, it is contended, Respondent was keenly aware of Complainant's rights in the COPART mark when the disputed domain name was registered.

 

Furthermore, Complainant repeats that content at the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, serves as an ARRM to invoke a function that directs users to various malware delivery websites on a rotating basis, which is clearcut bad faith, and disrupts Complainant's business for the commercial gain of Respondent.

 

Additionally, it has consistently been held that a general offer of a domain name at issue for sale at an inflated price can constitute evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Arris Enterprises LLC v. Milen Radumilo, FA 2072536 (Forum Dec. 28, 2023) ("Respondent is offering to sell the disputed domain name, and a general offer for sale may be sufficient to establish registration and use in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Further, the offer is for a price far in excess of the out-of-pocket registration fee. An offer to sell a disputed domain name with an inflated price may act as further evidence of bad faith registration and use.").

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is a provider of online vehicle auction and related services, using the COPART mark and holds a portfolio of registrations for the mark including:

·       United States registered service mark COPART registration number 3,941,221, registered on the Principal Register on April 5, 2011, for services in international class 35;

·       United States registered service mark COPART (figurative and design) registration number 4,601,885 registered on the Principal Register on September 9, 2014, for services in international classes 35, 39 and 42;

·       United States registered service mark COPART (figurative and design) registration number 4,601,884, registered on the Principal Register on September 9, 2014 for services in international classes 35, 39 and 42.

 

Complainant has an established Internet presence and maintains its principal website at <www.copart.com>.

 

The disputed domain name <coparrt.com> was registered on January 1, 2023 and resolves in some instances, to a parked page displaying pay-per-click hyperlinks to products and services that compete with those of Complainant and, in other instances, to a rotating series of third-party websites, and in other instances, the disputed domain name redirects to content related to travel but also containing an offer to sell the disputed domain name for $849.

 

There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint, the Registrar's WhoIs for the disputed domain name and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purposes of this proceeding.

 

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 provided convincing evidence that it has rights at common law. Complainant claims common law rights in the COPART mark established by its ownership of the portfolio of registrations described above, and extensive use of the mark in its international business providing vehicle auction and related services.

 

The disputed domain name is composed of an element "coparrt" in combination with the gTLD <.com>.

 

The COPART mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. The only difference between the disputed domain name and Complainant's mark is the inclusion of an additional letter "r".

 

It is well established that a panel may make a finding of confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy when the entirety of a complainant's mark is reproduced in its entirety within a domain name at issue and in the circumstances of this proceeding the principle may be applied to the disputed domain name which contains a minor, and probably intentional misspelling of the mark.

 

The generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.com> does not add any distinguishing character to the disputed domain name as it would be considered by Internet users as a necessary technical requirement for a domain name.

 

This Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the COPART mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above.

 

In particular, the uncontested evidence, including the screen captures exhibited in the annexes to the Complaint, show that Respondent has used the disputed domain name, which is almost identical to the COPART mark, to resolve to a website with links to third party websites.

 

Respondent is therefore not making a bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name. Furthermore, on the balance of probabilities Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide or legitimate purpose but instead is using the disputed domain name to take advantage of Complainant's goodwill in the COPART mark.

 

It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests.

 

Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

COPART is a distinctive mark in which Complainant has long established rights and an international reputation providing online vehicle auction services.

 

The disputed domain name was registered long after Complainant's rights were established and at a time when Complainant had already created business at more than 250 locations across 11 countries, including at least one location in every state in the USA. It 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. Furthermore, Complainant was delivering its services online on its website at <www.copart.com>.

 

It is implausible that the registrant of the disputed domain name was unaware of Complainant and its COPART mark when the disputed domain name was registered.

 

On the balance of probabilities the disputed domain name, composed of Complainant's mark albeit with a single misspelling was registered to create confusion with Complainant's established website at <www.copart.com>.

 

On the balance of probabilities therefore the registrant of the disputed domain name registered the disputed domain name in bad faith in an act of typosquatting, to take predatory advantage of Complainant's reputation and goodwill in the COPART mark and website at <www.copart.com>.

 

Furthermore, Complainant has adduced uncontested evidence in the form of screen captures of the web locations to which the disputed domain name resolves. The exhibited screen captures show that on different occasions the disputed domain name resolves to a web page with pay-per-click links, on other occasions it resolves to a website or websites designed to deliver malware to unsuspecting users, and on yet other occasions it resolves to a webpage offering the dispute domain name for sale at a price which on the balance of probabilities is in excess of Responent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name.

 

The Panel finds therefore that by using the disputed domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's COPART mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location, which constitutes use in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.

 

As the Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, Complainant has succeeded in the third and final element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and its application must be granted.

 

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

 

 

James Bridgeman SC

Panelist

Dated: March 1, 2026