Copartbilling.com

The timeline behind copartbilling.com

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. REDACTED Claim Number: FA2601002197712 PARTIES Complainant is Copart, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Rob LeBlanc of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is REDACTED ("Respondent"), represented by REDACTED, Texas, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <copartbilling.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. Steven M. Levy as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 3, 2026; Forum received payment on January 3, 2026. On January 6, 2026, HOSTINGER operations, UAB confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <copartbilling.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 January 6, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 26, 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@copartbilling.com. Also on January 6, 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. On January 23, 2026, Forum received an email from an individual claiming to represent Respondent. Having received no substantive response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On January 27, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy as Panelist. On January 29, 2026, Forum transmitted the Panel's Procedural Order to Respondent and its Representative. On the same date, Respondent's Representative replied to the Order. 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 is a publicly traded company with a market capitalization of around $36 billion (USD) that is an industry leader of online vehicle auction services with operations worldwide. Copart 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, Copart has provided goods and services related to the resale of vehicles under the trademark COPART, including through the website <copart.com>, among others. Today, Copart 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 owns United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") registrations for the COPART mark including Reg. No. 3941221 dated April 5, 2011; Reg. No. 4601885 dated September 9, 2014; and Reg. No. 4601884 dated September 9, 2014. As part of its global multi-billion-dollar business, Copart provides several webpages dedicated to billing and payment issues, including discussing how to pay for vehicles and services and keep track of finances related to Complainant's auto auction services. These pages discuss how to "access unpaid invoices, purchased lots, balances due, and get a refund, if eligible." Respondent's domain name, registered on July 3, 2025, incorporates Complainant's COPART mark in its entirety adding only the generic term "billing," and the non-distinctive gTLD ".com." Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by COPART or any version thereof and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the Copart Marks in any way. Further, it 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 disputed domain name. Rather, the website to which the disputed domain name resolves has been flagged and displays the message: "This site has been reported as unsafe." The site further states: "Microsoft recommends you don't continue to this site. It has been reported to Microsoft for containing phishing threats which may try to steal personal or financial information." The disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith where Respondent had prior knowledge of the COPART mark and based upon the above-mentioned website activity. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. However, correspondence was received by Forum on January 23, 2026 stating, in full: To Whom it May Concern: I am the person most knowledgeable and Power of Attorney to act on behalf of [REDACTED] referenced in the above matter. I would first like to point out that [REDACTED] does not have a mailbox and does not have mail delivered to [REDACTED] Street. [REDACTED] has a post office box which he does not monitor on a daily basis and therefore, he just became in receipt of your correspondence yesterday (1/22/26). [REDACTED] is NOT in receipt of the Complaint as referenced in your correspondence in 2. (to wit: 1/3/26). Secondly, [REDACTED] does NOT have an email address of [REDACTED]@gmail.com. Thirdly, [REDACTED] does not recognize the party referenced as "Copart, Inc." or any subsidiaries as referenced therein. [REDACTED] hereby denies any participation in or fraudulent activity and business interactions with anyone referenced in said Copart, Inc. Under no circumstances will [REDACTED] be contributing any monetary amount to any Administrative Proceedings. This is formal notice for you to cease and desist any communication with [REDACTED]. Any further attempts will be reported to appropriate authoritative agencies. [REDACTED] | Office Manager [REDACTED] Company, LLC C. Additional Submissions On January 29, 2026, Forum transmitted the Panel's Procedural Order requesting that Forum re-transmit electronic copies of all pleadings to both Respondent's email address, as listed in the WHOIS record for the disputed domain name, as well as to the email address provided for Respondent's Representative in the January 23, 2026 email from the same. In response, Respondent's Representative submitted the following email: Pursuant to a conversation I have had, on this date, with Attorney Rob LeBlanc, please consider this correspondence to constitute complete and total relinquishment of any and all domain names that may have been associated with [REDACTED]. At no time did [REDACTED] request, apply for or pursue ANY domain name and therefore, this relinquishment of this non-possessory interest should terminate any proceedings involving [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] | Office Manager [REDACTED] Company, LLC FINDINGS - Complainant owns rights to the COPART trademark; - It is likely that the Registrant of the disputed domain name has engaged in identity theft by registering the domain name with the name and address of an unrelated individual;, and - Respondent has consented to a voluntary transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant. 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 substantive 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"). PRELIMINARY ISSUE: IDENTITY THEFT According to Policy ¶ 4(j), "[a]ll decisions under this Policy will be published in full over the Internet, except when an Administrative Panel determines in an exceptional case to redact portions of its decision." In Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellzfargo.com>, FA 362108 (Forum Dec. 30, 2004) and Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellsfargossl>, FA 453727 (Forum May 19, 2005), the panels omitted the respondents' personal information from the decisions, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(j). Here, a Representative for the individual named in the WHOIS record for the disputed domain name has contacted Forum and stated that Respondent "does NOT have an email address" corresponding to that listed in the WHOIS record and that "[a]t no time did [REDACTED] request, apply for or pursue ANY domain name". While Respondent does not explicitly claim that it has been the victim of identity theft, its above-mentioned statements clearly convey its claim that it has no connection with the disputed domain name and, from this, the Panel concludes that identity theft is possible. In light of the Panel's findings, it is necessary to protect the identity of the individual named in the WHOIS record. The Panel will exercise its discretion under Policy ¶ 4(j) and determines that exceptional circumstances exist in this case. As such, this decision will be issued with the name of Respondent and its Representative redacted for privacy. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: CONSENT TO TRANSFER The Panel notes that, in a circumstance where a Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed domain name but instead agrees to transfer the domain name to Complainant, it may decide to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the disputed domain name. See 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 Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004) ("In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . 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 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."). In light of the correspondence sent to Forum by Respondent's Representative, as noted above, and as Complainant has requested the same action as Respondent (i.e., transfer of the disputed domain name), the Panel has determined that it is not necessary to analyze the present case under the elements of the UDRP. The Panel is cognizant of the fact that identity theft appears to be likely in this case and that the person consenting to transfer of the disputed domain name may not be the underlying Registrant. However, it takes the position that, either 1) Respondent's claims are false and it is, in fact, the Registrant of the disputed domain name, in which case it has consented to a voluntary transfer; or 2) the underlying Registrant has engaged in identity theft and its registration of the disputed domain name while listing a false name and address was a sham transaction. This, combined with its lack of appearance in the present proceedings, indicates that it has ceded its authority to defend this case to the named Respondent whose identity has been misused. In either case, the consent to transfer is accepted. DECISION Having established that appropriate conditions have been met under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <copartbilling.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Steven M. Levy, Panelist Dated: February 4, 2026 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.