Copart.center

The timeline behind copart.center

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Copart, Inc. v. Regery Ukraine / Regery Ukraine LLC Claim Number: FA2508002173239 PARTIES Complainant is Copart, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Rob LeBlanc of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is Regery Ukraine / Regery Ukraine LLC ("Respondent"), Ukraine. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <copart.center>, registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu. 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. Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 25, 2025. Forum received payment on August 25, 2025. On August 25, 2025, Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <copart.center> domain name is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu 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 27, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 16, 2025 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.center. Also on August 27, 2025, 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 17, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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, Copart, Inc., is an industry leader of online vehicle auction services with operations worldwide. It is the owner of the well-known marks COPART and the COPART logo design mark in numerous countries around the world. Complainant also owns and uses the domain name <copart.com> in connection with its services. The <copart.center> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's COPART marks. Respondent lacks rights or a legitimate interest in the <copart.center> domain name. At the time of filing this dispute, there was no available information on Respondent via WHOIS reports. It was subsequently revealed that the Registrant is Regery Ukraine / Regery Ukraine LLC, which acts as the DNS Name Server for the domain name and is a Ukraine-based company specializing in domain registration, web hosting, SSL certificates, and related services. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not affiliated with Complainant, nor has Respondent been authorized to use the COPART marks in any manner. Respondent has not used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and has never made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. The domain name resolves to the "Regery Parking Page" stating that the domain name is "online and can be managed at regery.com" and inviting users to search for a domain name to purchase through Regery.com. This content is considered a website that is being passively held, in that it points to a default parked page, advertising Regery.com's own domain name website hosting and brokerage services. 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. In this instance, the domain name was registered very recently on April 3, 2025, which is decades after Complainant's mark become world famous via extensive global sales of several billion dollars annually. Respondent most certainly had knowledge of Complainant's mark prior to registration of the domain name. There is no other global business operating under the name COPART, as Complainant has trademark registrations in nearly every jurisdiction in the world protecting its COPART mark and is hypervigilant in protecting its exclusivity. Accordingly, the only reason that Respondent registered the domain name was because of the fame of Complainant's COPART mark and being able to use the domain name to indicate that the website is the centralized source of activity (i.e. "center") for Complainant. Also, Respondent is holding the domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, without itself having any legitimate connection with Complainant or its services, which in and of itself has been held to be evidence of bad faith. Finally, it is not possible to conceive of a plausible legitimate use of the domain name that would not infringe on Complainant's rights. Respondent's continuing passive holding of the domain name is in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief. 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 Complainant has shown that it has rights in the mark COPART, including USPTO Registration No. 3,941,221, registered on April 5, 2011 for inter alia online auction services, in International Class 35. The Panel finds Respondent's <copart.center> domain name to be identical to Complainant's COPART mark, since the inconsequential ".center" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000). Complainant has established this element. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii): (i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. The <copart.center> domain name was registered in the name of the Registrar on April 3, 2025, many years after the registration of Complainant's COPART mark. It resolves to a Registrar parking page and is being passively held by the unnamed underlying registrant (if any). These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <copart.center> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. Complainant has established this element. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out some circumstances which shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. As noted in the WIPO Overview 3.0, Section 3.1, those circumstances are not exclusive and a complainant may demonstrate bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) by showing that a respondent seeks to take unfair advantage of, abuse, or otherwise engage in behavior detrimental to the complainant's trademark. In the absence of any Response, the circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent, located in the USA, was aware of Complainant and its distinctive and famous COPART trademark when Respondent registered the <copart.center> domain name and that Respondent did so in bad faith with intent to take unfair advantage of Complainant's mark. Although the <copart.center> domain name does not resolve to an active website, as in the leading case of Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, there is no conceivable active use that could be made of the domain name that would not amount to an infringement of Complainant's rights in its distinctive mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent's hitherto passive use of the domain name demonstrates registration and use in bad faith. Complainant has established this element. DECISION Complainant 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.center> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Alan L. Limbury, Panelist Dated: September 18, 2025 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.