Copartleiloes.org

The timeline behind copartleiloes.org

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.

DECISION Copart, Inc. v. cosme aparecido Claim Number: FA2602002204499 PARTIES Complainant is Copart, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Rob LeBlanc of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is cosme aparecido ("Respondent"), Brazil. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <copartleiloes.org>, registered with Tucows Domains 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 February 9, 2026; Forum received payment on February 9, 2026. On February 10, 2026, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <copartleiloes.org> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains 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 February 11, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 3, 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@copartleiloes.org. Also on February 11, 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 March 4, 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 $40 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. Copart is the owner of the well-known marks COPART and the COPART logo design mark in numerous countries around the world. Copart also owns and uses the domain name in connection with Complainant's online vehicle auction and transport services. Complainant's COPART mark has been held famous several times by Forum. In early 2025, Complainant was made aware of Respondent's use and registration of the at-issue domain name. The word "leiloes" in the domain name is the Portuguese language word that translates to the term "auctions," which directly relates to Complainant's vehicle auction services. At the time of filing this dispute, Respondent's information was privacy protected. After the filing of this Complaint, the Domain Name Verification Request revealed that the purported owner of the domain name is Cosme Aparecido, which does not contain or feature the term COPART, COPART LEILOES, or COPART AUCTIONS in any form or fashion. When Complainant first encountered the content on the domain name, it resolved to a Portuguese language imposter website that pretended to be Complainant, used Complainant's famous logo, and used Complainant's official address in Parana, Brazil. On the other hand, Respondent's contact email and phone number did not relate to legitimate contact avenues for Complainant. As Complainant was preparing this Complaint, the content on the domain name then began redirecting to a Wix parked page stating: "Looks like his domain isn't connected to a website yet. Is this your domain?" Thus, the current content located on the at-issue domain name is a classic example of a website that is being passively held. 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 domain name incorporates Complainant's COPART mark in its entirety adding only the non-distinctive, descriptive term "leiloes" translating to "auctions," which directly relates to Complainant's business as one of, if not the largest, vehicle auction provider in the world. As a result, just as consumers (understandably) expect to reach Complainant's authorized offerings via , there is no question that consumers will be confused into believing that is owned and operated by Complainant. Accordingly, the at-issue domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's marks. Respondent Has No Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name. First, Respondent has not been commonly known by the at-issue domain name and is not affiliated with Complainant, nor has been authorized to use the Copart marks in any manner. Further, Respondent has not used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Further still, Respondent has never made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Complainant has never consented to Respondent's use of the Copart marks, and indeed, Respondent never requested Complainant's permission to use the Copart marks. Lack of consent supports a finding that Respondent has no legitimate interest in 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 a parked page which states "Looks like this domain isn't connected to a website yet. Is this your domain?" Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. Passive holding of a domain name containing a well-known mark is commonly held to be bad faith registration and use. Complainant's mark has become world famous via extensive global sales of several billion dollars annually. Further, Respondent paired Complainant's famous mark with the descriptive term "leiloes" (translating to "auctions"), which directly relates to Complainant's vehicle auction services. Accordingly, Respondent most certainly had knowledge of Complainant's mark prior to registration of the domain name. Notably, passive holding of a domain name may be characterized as a disruption to a complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). The only reason that Respondent registered the domain name was because of the fame of Complainant's COPART mark and paired it with the descriptive term "leiloes" (translating to "auctions"), which directly relates to Complainant's vehicle auction services. 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 and has used the domain name to pass itself off as 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 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 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. 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 <copartleiloes.org> domain name contains Complainant's COPART trademark followed by the suggestive term "leiloes" the Portuguese word for "auction," 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 <copartleiloes.org> 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 <copartleiloes.org> ultimately serves to reveal that "cosme aparecido" is the domain name's registrant and there is nothing in the record that tends to prove that Respondent is otherwise known by the <copartleiloes.org> 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 has used the <copartleiloes.org> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant via Respondent's <copartleiloes.org> website. The domain name has resolved to a Portuguese language imposter website where posing as Complainant used Complainant's famous logo, and displayed Complainant's official address in Parana, Brazil. However, Respondent's contact email and phone number did not relate to legitimate contact avenues for Complainant. The <copartleiloes.org> domain name and website might well have been perceived as being an official or sponsored domain name and/or website of Complainant. Respondent's use of its <copartleiloes.org> domain name in this manner constitutes neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (refusing to find rights and legitimate interests in a domain name on the part of a respondent when the disputed domain name "resolves to a website that Respondent has designed to mimic Complainant's own in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant"). Respondent now holds <copartleiloes.org> passively. Upon browsing to <copartleiloes.org> a parked page is revealed stating: "Looks like his domain isn't connected to a website yet. Is this your domain?" Respondent's failure to actively use <copartleiloes.org> to access substantive content is likewise 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 <copartleiloes.org>. Registration and Use in Bad Faith As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith. Respondent used the at-issue domain name to address a website that appeared to be affiliated with Complainant. Respondent's use of <copartleiloes.org> in this manner is disruptive to Complainant's business and is intent on attracting internet users looking for Complainant to Respondent's website so that Respondent may capitalize on the confusion Respondent created between its <copartleiloes.org> domain name and Complainant's COPART trademarks. Respondent's use of <copartleiloes.org> demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting). Currently, Respondent's at-issue domain name fails to address any substantive content and can thus be considered inactive. Respondent's passive holding of <copartleiloes.org> disrupts Complainant's business and further 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 <copartleiloes.org> 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 and given Respondent's prior use of the confusingly similar domain name to address a website looking like it was sponsored by Complainant. Respondent's registration of <copartleiloes.org> 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 Sept. 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 <copartleiloes.org> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist Dated: March 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.