DECISION

 

Carahsoft Technology Corp. v. Ivan Spasenovic

Claim Number: FA2602002203655

PARTIES

Complainant is Carahsoft Technology Corp. ("Complainant"), represented by Adam D. Mandell of Millen, White, Zelano & Branigan, P.C., Virginia, USA. Respondent is Ivan Spasenovic ("Respondent"), Serbia.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <caresoft.co> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with Dynadot Inc.

PANEL

The undersigned, David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), 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.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 9, 2026; Forum received payment on the same date.

 

On February 5, 2026, Dynadot Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the Disputed Domain Name <caresoft.co> is registered with Dynadot Inc. and that Respondent Ivan Spasenovic is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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" or "UDRP").

 

On February 9, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 2, 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@caresoft.co.  

 

Having received no response from Respondent, Forum notified Respondent of its default.

 

On March 3, 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 Panel finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under UDRP Rule 2(a) and 4(a), and the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the UDRP Rules, and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant Carahsoft Technology Corp. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Maryland. Complainant describes itself as a leading provider of IT products and services to the public sector, including federal, state, and local government agencies, educational institutions, and prime contractors.

 

Complainant owns several United States trademark registrations for the CARAHSOFT mark, the earliest of which is Registration No. 3,685,627, registered on September 22, 2009.

 

Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Name <caresoft.co> constitutes typosquatting by being confusingly similar to the CARAHSOFT mark. The second-level domain 'caresoft' replaces the letters 'ah' in CARAHSOFT with 'e,' creating a phonetic equivalent.

 

Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, is not known by the name, is not authorized by Complainant, and that the Disputed Domain Name resolves only to a page offering the domain for sale. Complainant further alleges that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith, pointing to the typosquatting nature of the registration, Respondent's passive holding of the domain, the concealment of identity behind a privacy service, and the absence of any plausible legitimate purpose for the registration.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

The Panel finds as follows:

Complainant is the owner of the registered trademark CARAHSOFT. The earliest United States trademark registration is Registration No. 3,685,627 for the mark CARAHSOFT, registered on September 22, 2009.

 

The Disputed Domain Name <caresoft.co> was registered on December 16, 2025, more than sixteen years after Complainant's earliest trademark registration.

 

There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or any similar name. Respondent is not authorized by Complainant to use the CARAHSOFT mark. See UDRP Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

As of the date of the Complaint, the Disputed Domain Name resolved to a page stating that the domain name "caresoft.co is for sale!" Respondent is passively holding the Disputed Domain Name without any bona fide offering of goods or services. This passive holding, combined with the confusingly similar nature of the Disputed Domain Name to Complainant's well-known mark, creates actual or potential harm to Complainant by diverting Internet users and facilitating potential phishing or impersonation.

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the UDRP 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 the Disputed Domain Name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

(1) the Disputed 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 Disputed Domain Name; and

(3) the Disputed 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 UDRP Rules ¶¶ 5(f), 14(a), and 15(a), and draw such inferences as it considers appropriate pursuant to UDRP Rule ¶ 14(b).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established rights in the CARAHSOFT mark through its United States trademark registrations, the earliest being Registration No. 3,685,627, registered on September 22, 2009. The Disputed Domain Name <caresoft.co> differs from the CARAHSOFT mark only by the substitution of the letters "ah" with the letter "e" yielding the term "caresoft." The resulting domain name sounds nearly identical to the CARAHSOFT mark, and the two terms are phonetic equivalents. Both share the distinctive prefix "car" and suffix "soft." This is a classic instance of typosquatting. The addition of the country-code top-level domain ".co" is an administrative requirement, irrelevant to the analysis of confusing similarity under the first element. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.7; see also WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.9.

 

Prior panels have consistently found confusing similarity under analogous circumstances. In Carahsoft Technology Corp. v. Fatkin Tdme, FA 1981718 (Forum Feb. 28, 2022), the panel found the domain name <carhasoft.com>, which merely transposed two letters in the CARAHSOFT mark, to be confusingly similar. Similarly, in Morgan Stanley v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1783121 (Forum June 1, 2018), the panel held that minor letter variations do not avoid a finding of confusing similarity.

 

The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the CARAHSOFT mark and that Complainant has satisfied 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, after which the burden shifts to Respondent to demonstrate such rights. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 2.1.

 

There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or any similar name, nor is Respondent an agent, licensee, or authorized representative of Complainant. See UDRP Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Disputed Domain Name resolves only to a page offering the domain for sale. There is no evidence that Respondent has used, or made 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 that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

In Carahsoft Technology Corp. v. Zoe Davis, FA 1981717 (Forum Feb. 28, 2022), involving the domain <carahsofft.org>, the panel found no rights or legitimate interests where Complainant had not authorized the use of its mark and there was no evidence the respondent was commonly known by the domain name. In CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. v. Yu-Hsien Huang, FA 1785415 (Forum June 6, 2018), the panel found that passive holding of a domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

 

Respondent has failed to submit a Response and has not rebutted Complainant's prima facie case. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, and that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on December 16, 2025, more than sixteen years after Complainant's earliest CARAHSOFT trademark registration and many years after the mark became well known and incontestable. The evidence of Complainant's Chief Information Security Officer reflects that since at least as early as 1999, Carahsoft Technology has used the trademark CARAHSOFT in connection with value-added reseller services, namely, distributorship services featuring information technology ("IT") products. Carahsoft Technology provides information regarding technology products, services and training to federal, state, and local governments, educational institutions and prime contractors. For years, sales of goods and services offered under the CARAHSOFT Mark have exceeded billions of U.S. dollars annually.

 

The Disputed Domain Name is a typographical variation of the CARAHSOFT mark, constituting typosquatting, which UDRP panels have consistently recognized as evidence of bad faith registration and use. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 3.2.1.

 

Complainant's evidence shows its awareness that bad actors have registered domain names confusingly similar to the CARAHSOFT Mark in order to engage in phishing scams. Nonetheless, even absent proof positive of phishing or similar fraudulent conduct, prior UDRP panels have consistently held that the mere passive holding, or passive use, of a domain is not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial use, but rather evidence of using the mark in bad faith. See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Shemesh, FA 434145 (Forum Apr. 20, 2005) (Where the panel found inactive use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy 4(c)(i).); see also Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear

Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000); see also Ecolab USA Inc. v. Genius Ingenuity / Genius Incorporated, FA 2006413 (Forum August 24, 2022) (finding that a parked webpage containing an offer to sell the website was not a bona fide offering of goods or services.) The doctrine of passive holding, as established in Telstra Corporation, holds that where a complainant's mark has a strong reputation and a respondent fails to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use, the inactivity of the domain name itself can constitute bad faith use. 

 

The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a page offering the domain for sale, demonstrating Respondent's bad faith. Respondent has also concealed its identity behind a privacy service, which prior panels have treated as a factor supporting a finding of bad faith. There is no plausible legitimate explanation for the registration of a domain name that is a misspelling of Complainant's well-known and distinctive mark.

 

In Carahsoft Technology Corp. v. Zoe Davis, FA 1981717 (Forum Feb. 28, 2022), the panel found that typosquatting on the CARAHSOFT mark was itself evidence of bad faith registration and use. In State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Domain Privacy / Domain Name Privacy Inc., FA 2169250 (Forum Sep. 10, 2025), the panel held that registering and marketing for sale a domain name that clearly incorporates another's famous trademark constitutes obvious indications of both registration and bad faith use. See also WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 3.3.

 

Under all the circumstances explained above, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith, and that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the Disputed Domain Name <caresoft.co> be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated: March 4, 2026