Westmore · UDRP DecisionCarvanallc.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <carvanallc.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered CARVANA mark because it incorporated the mark in full and merely added the corporate abbreviation “llc” and the “.com” gTLD. The Respondent had no authorization, was not shown to be commonly known by the domain, and used it to redirect visitors to unrelated content at “www.imgur.com”. The Panel further found that the Respondent likely registered the domain with the CARVANA mark in mind and used it to target the Complainant for financial gain through confusion and misdirection.
The timeline behind carvanallc.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
The case illustrates a straightforward UDRP application where a domain reproduces a trademark in full and adds a corporate-form abbreviation that may reinforce an apparent association with the trademark owner. The decision also shows how an unexplained redirect to unrelated content, coupled with the absence of authorization and a respondent default, can support findings against rights or legitimate interests and in favor of bad-faith targeting.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Carvana, LLC v. Not disclosed Not disclosed Case No. D2020-3235 1. The Parties The Complainant is Carvana, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, United States. The Respondent is Not disclosed Not disclosed, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <carvanallc.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 1, 2020. On December 2, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On December 4, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 10, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 30, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 4, 2021. The Center appointed Lynda M. Braun as the sole panelist in this matter on January 11, 2021. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant operates a leading e-commerce platform for buying and selling used cars and promotes and provides online automobile dealership and automobile financing services throughout the United States. The Complainant’s business has grown rapidly since it was launched in January 2013, and in 2019 alone, the Complainant sold more than 175,000 vehicles to retail customers. The Complainant hosts an official company website at “www.carvana.com”, which has an average of more than 5 million unique visitors each month. The Complainant expends significant resources and effort in promoting, marketing, advertising, and building consumer recognition and goodwill in its branded goods and services. The Complainant owns a number of trademarks through the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), including, but not limited to: - CARVANA United States Registration No. 4,328,785, registered on April 30, 2013, in International Classes 35 and 36; - CARVANACARE, United States Registration No. 4,971,997, registered on June 7, 2016, in International Class 36; - CARVANA, United States Registration No. 5,022,315, registered on August 16, 2016, in International Class 39; and United States Registration No. 6,037,292, registered on April 21, 2020, in International Classes 35, 36, and 39 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “CARVANA Mark”). The Disputed Domain Name was registered on October 3, 2020, and redirects to a website at “www.imgur.com”. The landing page of the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves contains content unrelated to the Complainant’s goods and services. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The following are the Complainant’s contentions: - the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; - the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and - the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant seeks the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name from the Respondent to the Complainant in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order for the Complainant to prevail and have the Disputed Domain Name transferred to the Complainant, the Complainant must prove the following (Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i-iii)): (i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and (iii) the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, is the Disputed Domain Name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark. The Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the CARVANA Mark as set forth below. It is uncontroverted that the Complainant has established rights in the CARVANA Mark based on its registered trademarks for the CARVANA Mark. The general rule is that “registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive”. CWI, Inc. v. Domain Administrator c/o Dynadot , WIPO Case No. D2015-1734 . The Respondent has not rebutted this presumption, and therefore the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the CARVANA Mark. The Disputed Domain Name consists of the entirety of the CARVANA Mark followed by the term “llc”, which is the abbreviation for “limited liability company”, and then followed by the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. Where the trademark is recognizable in the Disputed Domain Name, the addition of other terms, such as “llc” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8 (“where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element”); see Applied Materials Inc. v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0152257585 / Name Redacted , WIPO Case No. D2019-1116 (“The term ‘inc’ refers to a form of corporate entity commonly used in business. Addition of that term to Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name.”). Further, the addition of a gTLD such as “.com” in a domain name is technically required. Thus, it is well established that such element may typically be disregarded when assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. See Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. Proactiva , WIPO Case No. D2012-0182 and WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.11 . Accordingly, the Panel finds that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the Policy, a complainant has to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such a prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of production of evidence that demonstrates rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant may be deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.1 . There is no evidence in the record suggesting that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s CARVANA Mark. There is also no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by any name similar to it. Finally, the Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name to divert potential customers away from the Complainant’s official website and redirect those customers to Respondent’s website at “www.imgur.com”, which website has no relation to the Complainant and its goods and services. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that, based on the record, the Complainant has demonstrated the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name pursuant to paragraph 4(b) of the Policy. First, the Disputed Domain Name was registered a several years after the Complainant first began using the CARVANA Mark. The Panel finds it likely that the Respondent had the Complainant’s CARVANA Mark in mind when registering the Disputed Domain Name, demonstrating bad faith. Second, the registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark by an entity that has no relationship to that mark may be sufficient evidence of opportunistic bad faith. See Ebay Inc. v. Wangming , WIPO Case No. D2006-1107 ; Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co ., WIPO Case No. D2000-0163 . Based on the circumstances here, the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith to target the Complainant’s CARVANA Mark for financial gain. Finally, the use of a domain name to attract Internet users to a registrant’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with a complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the registrant’s online location demonstrates registration and use in bad faith. Thus, the Respondent’s use of the significant goodwill in the CARVANA Mark by registering the Disputed Domain Names and using the Disputed Domain Name for financial gain to misdirect visitors to the Respondent’s website demonstrates the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names under the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Name <carvanallc.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Lynda M. Braun Sole Panelist Date: January 25, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around carvanallc.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.