DECISION

 

Copart, Inc. v. mirko latkovic

Claim Number: FA2602002207639

 

PARTIES

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

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <copart-auctions.com>, registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB.

 

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.

 

Héctor Ariel Manoff as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 26, 2026; Forum received payment on February 26, 2026.

 

On March 2, 2026, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <copart-auctions.com> domain name is registered with HOSTINGER operations, UAB and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. HOSTINGER operations, UAB has verified that Respondent is bound by the HOSTINGER operations, UAB 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 March 3, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 23, 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-auctions.com. Also, on March 3, 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 24, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Héctor Ariel Manoff 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

1- Copart, Inc. is a company which offers online vehicle auction services with operations worldwide.

2- Complainant has provided goods and services related to the resale of vehicles under the trademark COPART for 43 years.

3- Complainant owns the website <copart.com> and uses it to promote its services.

4-Copart has more than 250 locations across 11 countries, 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.

5- Complainant owns the well-known marks COPART and the COPART logo design mark in numerous countries around the world.

6- Respondent registered the disputed domain name <copart-auctions.com> on July 27, 2025.

7- The disputed domain name's website is being used to phish for confidential information of Complainant's customers.

8- The disputed domain name <copart-auctions.com> is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, by incorporating COPART mark in its entirety, adding only the term "auctions", a non-distinctive hyphen, and non-distinctive gTLD ".com." 

9- Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

10- respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Copart, Inc. owns COPART trademark and domain name <copart.com>. Respondent registered the disputed domain name <copart-auctions.com> on July 27, 2025. Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

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

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <copart-auctions.com> is nearly identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's COPART mark, in which Complainant has rights. (Exhibit 4).

 

The disputed domain name <copart-auctions.com> incorporates Complainant's COPART mark and adds the generic term "auctions", which is related to Complainant's activities, a hyphen and the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".com".

 

The Panel finds that the term COPART is a fanciful and arbitrary term in relation to the services provided by Complainant and that it is clear that Respondent knew it belonged to Complainant.

 

Respondent has just added a generic word which is related to the services identified by Complainant's trademark, and the domain name is almost identical (except for the generic term and the hyphen) to the domain name <copart.com> which belongs to Complainant. The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark since the additional elements are not sufficiently distinctive. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element").

 

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to COPART mark, in which Complainant has rights, under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show 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").

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the COPART mark. 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)").

 

In addition, Respondent has neither filed a response nor submitted evidence to prove that Respondent has any trademark rights in the disputed domain name.

 

WHOIS information does not suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name (Exhibit 2). This Panel finds that Respondent has never been commonly known by the domain name.

 

The evidence submitted by Complainant shows that Respondent's use of the disputed domain is not a bona fide offering of goods. The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage which states "This site has been reported as unsafe" and "Microsoft recommends you don't continue to this site" (Exhibit 6).

 

According to Complainant's grounds, which were not rebutted by Respondent, at the time of filing the Complaint, Respondent was using the domain name to resolve to a website that phishes for confidential information of Complainant's customers.

 

This Panel agrees with Complainant that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial use or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii).

 

Therefore, the Panel agrees that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and does not have legitimate interest under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The domain registration by Respondent was done after Complainant's domain name and trademarks had been registered more than 10 years before (Exhibit 4).

 

The domain name was registered on July 27, 2025 (Exhibit 2).

 

Taking it into account, as well as the fame of Complaint's trademark declared on some prior decisions detailed by Complainant and not rebutted by Respondent, it is clear for this Panel that the registration of the domain name was done with Complainant's marks in mind. Registration was done in bad faith.

 

In addition, the disputed domain name <copart-auctions.com> includes Complainant's trademark along with a generic term (which is related to Complainant's activities), which is a sign of bad faith too.

 

The Panel concludes that Respondent has the intention of creating an association with Complainant and its services and that has registered the domain name with the intent to attract and divert Internet users to the corresponding website for its own benefit. See Carey Int'l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Forum July 29, 2005) ("[T]he Panel finds that Respondent is capitalizing on the confusing similarity of its domain names to benefit from the valuable goodwill that Complainant has established in its marks. Consequently, it is found that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."); 

 

The disputed domain name homepage does not currently resolve to any active content; however, it can also be considered a bad faith sign. See Robert Half Inc. v. Rose Diaz / Robert half staffing, FA 2111371 (Forum Sept. 12, 2024) ("Respondent's passive holding of <rosediazroberthalfstaffing.org> demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)); see also CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina v. Zhuang Yan / WANGYONG, FA 1764026 (Forum Feb. 14, 2018) ("Respondent's domain names do not have resolving websites. Using a domain name to resolve to an inactive website (or no website at all) indicates bad faith registration and use").

 

Prior Panels have considered it reasonable to infer bad faith registration and use when facing conflicts involving inactive domain names without evidence of preparations for use. See Health Catalyst, Inc. v. Javid Henry FA 2158701 (Forum July 1, 2025), ("Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's registered mark. Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the domain name, nor to have engaged in preparations for such use, and has failed to come forward with any explanation for the selection of the name or its intended use. Under the circumstances, the Panel considers it reasonable to infer that Respondent registered the domain name intending to use it in a manner calculated to create and exploit confusion with Complainant and its mark, likely either by using the domain name to attract or defraud Internet users seeking Complainant or by selling the domain name to Complainant or a competitor, and that Respondent is maintaining the domain name for that purpose). See, e.g., Blink Health Inc. v. Asif Khan / BlinkRXhealth, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith").

 

Complainant also submitted evidence (Exhibit 6) showing that Respondent's website seems to phish for confidential personal or financial information and that the site contains a warning stating that "This site has been reported as unsafe". Respondent has neither refuted nor submitted evidence on the Complainant's grounds about use in bad faith.

 

The Panel determines that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 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 <copart-auctions.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

Héctor Ariel Manoff, Panelist

Dated: April 6, 2026