DECISION

 

Copart, Inc. v. Nicole Castilho

Claim Number: FA2607002235333

 

PARTIES

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

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <copartautoauction.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 28, 2026; Forum received payment on July 28, 2026.

 

On August 7, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <copartautoauction.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 August 12, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 1, 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@copartautoauction.com. Also on August 12, 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 September 2, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends in part as follows:

 

Complainant Copart, Inc. is a publicly traded company with a market capitalization of around $28 billion (USD) that is an industry leader of online vehicle auction services with operations worldwide. Complainant 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.

 

Complainant is the owner of the well-known marks COPART and the COPART logo design mark in numerous countries around the world including having U.S. trademark registrations.

 

The At-issue Domain Name is Identical or Confusingly Similar to Complainant's Marks.

Complainant's registrations for the COPART trademark constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the mark and establish Complainant's rights for purposes of the Policy. Respondent's at-issue domain name incorporates Complainant's COPART mark in its entirety adding only the generic/descriptive terms "auto auction" and non-distinctive gTLD ".com." The term "auto auction" simply indicates that the domain name relates to the auto auction services provided by Complainant. The terms "auction(s)" and "auto(s)" not to sufficiently distinguish the domain name from Complainant's marks.

 

Respondent Has No Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name.

Respondent is not commonly known by COPART or any version thereof. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the Copart marks in any way. After the filing of this Complaint, it was revealed that Respondent's name is allegedly Nicole Castilho, which does not include or feature COPART or COPART AUTO AUCTION in any form or fashion. Thus, there is no evidence to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by COPART or COPART AUTO AUCTION, or that Respondent operates a business or other organization under this mark. Further, Respondent cannot have acquired any rights to the at-issue domain name because, at the time of filing this Complaint, it is registered through a WHOIS privacy service. Since Respondent has refused to publicly associate itself with the at-issue domain name, it is impossible for Respondent to have acquired any rights or secondary meaning in the name. Moreover, Complainant has never consented to Respondent's use of the COPART marks, and Respondent never requested Complainant's permission to use the COPART marks. Lack of consent supports the finding that Respondent has no legitimate interest in the at-issue domain name.

 

Respondent has not used the 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 at-issue domain name. Rather, at the time of filing this Complaint, Respondent uses the domain name to resolve to Namecheap's (the hosting provider) default parked content discussing website brokerage and auction services.

 

Respondent's passive holding of the at-issue domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as contemplated by Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)." 

 

Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.

Passive holding of a domain name containing well known marks is commonly held to be bad faith registration and use. passive holding of a domain name may be characterized as a disruption to a complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).  Complainant's COPART mark has been held famous several times by Forum. The domain name was registered on June 27, 2025, which is decades after Complainant's mark become world famous. Accordingly, Respondent most certainly had knowledge of Complainant's mark prior to registration of the domain name, which is why Respondent paired Copart's famous COPART mark with the generic/descriptive terms "autoauction" related to Copart's auto auction services. Actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in the mark prior to registering the disputed domain name is adequate evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

There are no other global businesses operating under the name COPART, as Complainant has trademark registrations in nearly every jurisdiction in the world protecting its COPART mark and is hypervigilant and protecting its exclusivity. Accordingly, the only reason that Respondent registered the at-issue domain name was because of the fame of Complainant's COPART mark and combined it with the generic/descriptive terms "autoauction," which relates to support services for Complainant's focus on automobile auctions.

 

Respondent is holding the domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, without Respondent having any legitimate connection with Complainant or its services, which in and of itself is evidence of bad faith.

 

The content on the at-issue domain name's website also includes no disclaimer as to affiliation with Complainant. It has also been found by several panels that lack of disclaimer stating that respondent is not affiliated with complainant evidences bad faith use and registration (not that a disclaimer could dispel the potential confusion in this instance).

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in COPART.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not authorized to use the COPART mark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired trademark rights in COPART.

 

Respondent holds the at-issue domain name passively.

 

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 as 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 3.1 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 at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant shows that it has USPTO registrations for its COPART trademark as wells as other registrations for COPART worldwide. Any of such registrations is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in the COPART mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant's registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

Respondent's <copartautoauction.com> domain name contains Complainant's COPART trademark followed by the suggestive term or terms "auto auctions," with all followed by the ".org" top-level. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the differences between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark do nothing to distinguish one from the other. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <copartautoauction.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's COPART trademark. See 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.").

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and "Panels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name.").

 

The WHOIS information for <copartautoauction.com> ultimately serves to reveal that "Nicole Castilho" is the domain name's registrant and there is nothing in the record that tends to prove that Respondent is otherwise known by the <copartautoauction.com> domain name. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent holds <copartautoauction.com> passively. Upon browsing to <copartautoauction.com> no substantiative content is displayed. Respondent's failure to actively use <copartautoauction.com> to access content is not 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 CrossFirst Bankshares, Inc. v Yu-Hsien Huang, FA 1785415 (Forum June 6, 2018) ("Complainant demonstrates that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name as it resolves to an inactive website. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to actively use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).").

 

Given the foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in <copartautoauction.com>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith.

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name fails to address any substantive content and can thus be considered inactive. Respondent's passive holding of <copartautoauction.com> disrupts Complainant's business and demonstrates bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶4(b)(iii ). See Regions Bank v. Darla atkins, FA 1786409 (Forum June 20, 2018) ("Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) because Respondent uses the domain name to host an inactive website."); see also, Solar Turbines v. Ogunade, FA 1811640 (Forum Nov. 11, 2018) ("...Respondent inactively holds the <solarsturbines.com> domain name, thereby supporting a finding of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)."). Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of a future use of the domain name which does not transgress Complainant's rights. 

 

Moreover, Respondent registered <copartautoauction.com> with actual knowledge of Complainant and Complainant's trademark rights in COPART. Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's rights is clear given the fame of Complainant's trademark. Respondent's registration of <copartautoauction.com> with knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights in COPART further indicates Respondent's bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4 (a)(iii). See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum September 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).

 

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

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: September 2, 2026