DECISION

 

Copart, Inc. v. Karl Schnurch / EdenMedia

Claim Number: FA2602002204218

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Copart, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Rob LeBlanc of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is Karl Schnurch / EdenMedia ("Respondent"), Seychelles.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <coaprt.com> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with Key-Systems GmbH.

 

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.

 

David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 8, 2026; Forum received payment on February 8, 2026.

 

On February 10, 2026, Key-Systems GmbH confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <coaprt.com> domain name is registered with Key-Systems GmbH and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Key-Systems GmbH has verified that Respondent is bound by the Key-Systems GmbH 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 11, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 3, 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@coaprt.com. Also on February 11, 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 March 4, 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 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, Copart, Inc., is a publicly traded company with a market capitalization of approximately $39 billion (USD) and is an industry leader in online vehicle auction services with operations worldwide. For over 43 years, Copart has provided goods and services related to the resale of vehicles under the trademark COPART, including through its website at <copart.com>. Today, Copart operates more than 250 locations across 11 countries, holds over 265,000 vehicles up for auction daily, and sells over 3 million vehicles per year to buyers in more than 190 countries.

 

Complainant owns multiple U.S. trademark registrations for the COPART mark and the COPART logo design mark, including U.S. Registration No. 3,941,221 (registered April 5, 2011) for the word mark COPART. Complainant's COPART mark has been found famous by prior Forum panels.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name <coaprt.com> in December 2021 — decades after Complainant's COPART mark had achieved worldwide fame — by simply transposing the letters "p" and "a" in the COPART mark to form COAPRT. Complainant contends that this constitutes typosquatting, designed to capture Internet users who inadvertently transpose those letters when attempting to reach Complainant's legitimate website at <copart.com>.

 

Complainant further alleges that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a parked page displaying pay-per-click links to services related to Complainant's COPART mark (such as "Online Car Auctions") and to links for direct competitors. Standard security software blocks the Disputed Domain Name as containing malware. Complainant describes the website as employing a technique known as "Automatic Rapid Redirection to Malware" (ARRM), which diverts users to a rotating series of third-party websites, some of which attempt to install malware on users' computers. In addition, the Disputed Domain Name displays a "Buy this domain" banner, and GoDaddy lists the domain for sale as a Premium Domain with a minimum offer of $100 and an estimated value of $1,403 — well in excess of Respondent's out-of-pocket registration costs.

 

Respondent's identity was privacy-protected at the time of filing. Following unmasking, Respondent was identified as Karl Schnurch / EdenMedia, an entity that has been the losing respondent in multiple prior UDRP proceedings involving well-known third-party trademarks. Complainant alleges that this pattern of conduct further confirms bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Copart, Inc., owns the COPART trademark, as evidenced by, inter alia, U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,941,221, registered on April 5, 2011 (the "COPART Mark"). Complainant has also used the COPART mark continuously in commerce since at least 1982.

 

According to the WHOIS record in evidence, Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name <coaprt.com> on December 31, 2021.

 

Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by any similar name within the meaning of UDRP Policy Paragraph 4(c)(ii).

 

The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as Karl Schnurch / EdenMedia, which bears no resemblance to COPART or COAPRT. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the COPART Mark or any variation thereof.

 

The website associated with the Disputed Domain Name has been blocked by standard security software as containing malware. When accessed via a safe browsing sandbox, the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a parked page displaying suggested search links expressly related to Complainant's COPART mark and auction services (e.g., "Online Car Auctions") and, upon clicking those links, pay-per-click hyperlinks to Complainant's direct competitors. The Disputed Domain Name also bears a "Buy this domain" banner, and GoDaddy lists it for sale at a minimum offer of $100, with an estimated value of $1,403 — both figures exceeding Respondent's out-of-pocket registration costs. These activities cause actual and potential harm to Complainant by diverting its customers, disrupting its business, and exposing Internet users to malware.

 

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 Overview 3.1, ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Under Policy Paragraph 4(a)(i), Complainant must demonstrate rights in a trademark and that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark.

 

Complainant has established rights in the COPART Mark through its longstanding use and multiple U.S. trademark registrations, the earliest of which — U.S. Registration No. 3,941,221 — was registered on April 5, 2011. Trademark registration with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy. See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 0221171 (Forum Feb. 18, 2004). WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.2.

 

The Disputed Domain Name <coaprt.com> incorporates the entirety of Complainant's COPART Mark, differing only by a transposition of the letters "p" and "a" to form "COAPRT," together with the addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) ".com." It is well established under the Policy that the mere addition of a gTLD is insufficient to distinguish a domain name from the relevant mark. See Red Hat Inc v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006). Furthermore, panels have consistently held that misspellings achieved by transposing two letters do not distinguish a domain name from a complainant's trademark. See Buff City Soap Holdings, LLC v. WeiJianDong, FA 2166031 (Forum Aug. 11, 2025); Copart, Inc. v. Nguyễn Văn Lư, FA 2153114 (Forum June 11, 2025) (finding the domain name ccopart.com confusingly similar to Complainant's COPART trademark and an example of typosquatting); WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.9 (confirming that a domain name that is a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is confusingly similar to that mark).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name <coaprt.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's COPART Mark, and that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of Policy Paragraph 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under Policy Paragraph 4(a)(ii), Complainant must demonstrate that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Once a complainant makes a prima facie case in support of this element, the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 2.1. Respondent has not submitted a Response, and the Panel therefore draws all reasonable inferences in Complainant's favor.

 

First, Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. The WHOIS record identifies Respondent as Karl Schnurch / EdenMedia, a name bearing no resemblance to COPART or COAPRT. See Tercent Inc. v. Yi, FA 139720 (Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (holding that WHOIS information failing to suggest that respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name is a factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply). Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the COPART Mark in any form.

 

Second, Respondent has not used the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor has Respondent made any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. The website at the Disputed Domain Name operates as an ARRM that redirects users to a rotating series of third-party websites — including websites designed to install malware on users' computers and pay-per-click links to Complainant's direct competitors. Such use cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Copart, Inc. v. Nguyễn Văn Lư, FA 2153114 (Forum June 11, 2025); WordPress Foundation v. Domain Administrator, FA 2113692 (Forum Sept. 30, 2024) (holding that use of a typosquatted domain name employing ARRM was not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).

 

Third, Respondent's offering of the Disputed Domain Name for sale at a price exceeding its out-of-pocket registration costs further demonstrates the absence of any legitimate rights or interests. See Treasure Studio, Inc. and Moonbug Entertainment Limited v. Domain Privacy / Domain Name Privacy Inc., FA 2126510 (Forum Dec. 27, 2024).

 

Fourth, typosquatting itself is neither indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, FA 2125095 (Forum Dec. 11, 2024).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, and that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of Policy Paragraph 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Under Policy Paragraph 4(a)(iii), Complainant must demonstrate that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Panel finds compelling evidence of bad faith on multiple independent grounds.

 

First, the COPART Mark had achieved worldwide fame well before Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in December 2021. In 2021 alone, Complainant reported revenues of $2.69 billion. Prior Forum panels have expressly found the COPART mark to be famous. See Copart, Inc. v. samba Sidibe, FA 2104029 (Forum July 21, 2024). Given the mark's fame, it is wholly implausible that Respondent created the Disputed Domain Name without knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights. The fame of the COPART Mark at the time of registration renders it impossible to conceive of any good faith basis for Respondent's registration. WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 3.2.2.

 

Second, Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name as an ARRM — directing users to a rotating series of websites, including malware delivery sites — constitutes bad faith use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See eNom, Incorporated v. Muhammad Enoms General delivery / Enoms.com, FA 1621663 (Forum July 2, 2015); WordPress Foundation v. Domain Administrator, FA 2113692 (Forum Sept. 30, 2024).

 

Third, by redirecting users to competing vehicle sales websites and pay-per-click links to Complainant's competitors, Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website, within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent's conduct also disrupts Complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary Macy's West Stores, Inc. v. jiangchunyuan, FA 1685126 (Forum Sept. 6, 2016); Microsoft Corp. v. Lorge, FA 1380106 (Forum Apr. 25, 2011).

 

Fourth, Respondent's general offer to sell the Disputed Domain Name for a sum ($100 minimum; estimated value $1,403) far in excess of its out-of-pocket registration costs is further evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Arris Enterprises LLC v. Milen Radumilo, FA 2072536 (Forum Dec. 28, 2023); Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Wang Liqun, FA 1625332 (Forum July 17, 2015).

 

Fifth, Respondent's engagement in typosquatting — deliberately transposing two letters in the COPART Mark to form the Disputed Domain Name — is in itself evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003); Cost Plus Management Services, Inc. v. xushuaiwei, FA 1800036 (Forum Sept. 7, 2018). WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 3.1.

 

Sixth, Respondent's established pattern of registering domain names that incorporate well-known third-party trademarks — as evidenced by prior adverse UDRP decisions against Respondent involving, inter alia, The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Karl Schnurch / EdenMedia, FA 2048071 (Forum July 14, 2023); Sirius XM Radio LLC v. Karl Schnurch / EdenMedia, FA 2199171 (Forum Feb. 3, 2024); and United States Steel Corporation v. Karl Schnurch / EdenMedia, FA 2159673 (Forum July 2, 2025) — further confirms Respondent's bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) and ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, and that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of Policy Paragraph 4(a)(iii).

 

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

 

 

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated: March 4, 2026