Copart.autos

The timeline behind copart.autos

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. Sheron Autis Claim Number: FA2511002189014 PARTIES Complainant is Copart, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Rob LeBlanc of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is Sheron Autis ("Respondent"), United Kingdom. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <copart.autos>, registered with Spaceship, Inc. 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. Richard Hill as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 15, 2025; Forum received payment on November 15, 2025. On November 18, 2025, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <copart.autos> domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Spaceship, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, 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 November 18, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 8, 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.autos. Also on November 18, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. Respondent did however send an email to Forum, see below. On December 9, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it is a publicly traded company with a market capitalization of around $40 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. For 43 years, Complainant has provided goods and services related to the resale of vehicles under the trademark COPART, including through the website <copart.com>, among others. Today, Complainant has more than 250 locations across 11 countries, including at least one location in every state in the USA, 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. Complainant is committed to its customers and sells vehicles on behalf of several industries, including insurance companies, banks, dealerships, rental car companies, and the general public, among others. Complainant's buyers also include individuals and corporations from a variety of backgrounds and industries that purchase vehicles for both business and personal use. Complainant asserts rights in the mark COPART through its registration in the United States in 2011. The mark is famous. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its COPART mark as it incorporates the entire mark and merely adds the ".autos" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its mark in any way. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name is not being used. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith as it is not being used. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its mark. Respondent used a privacy service. The WHOIS information is false. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. B. Respondent In its email to Forum Respondent states: "Ok. We will remove the domain name." FINDINGS For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact. However, the Panel notes, obiter dictum, that the evidence set forth in the Complaint appears to support Complainant's allegations. DISCUSSION 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. Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." The Panel interprets Respondent's email to Forum to indicate consent to transfer the disputed domain name. Thus, in the present case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy. See Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int'l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) ("[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant's request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names."). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy. Rights or Legitimate Interests For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy. Registration and Use in Bad Faith For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy. DECISION Given the common request of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <copart.autos> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: December 9, 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.