Npavctions.com

The timeline behind npavctions.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 Canis Magnus, Inc. v. [REDACTED] Claim Number: FA2602002205156 PARTIES Complainant is Copart Canis Magnus, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Rob LeBlanc of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is [REDACTED] ("Respondent"), USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <npavctions.com>, registered with Dynadot 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. James Bridgeman SC as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 12, 2026; Forum received payment on February 12, 2026. On February 18, 2026, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <npavctions.com> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 19, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 11, 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@npavctions.com. Also on February 19, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default, however Forum received a communication from the named registrant denying any connection with the disputed domain name. This issue is dealt with in the Preliminary Issues below. On March 13, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: CONSENT TO TRANSFER The disputed domain name was registered using a privacy service to conceal the identity of the registrant on the published WhoIs. When the Complaint was received, Forum wrote to the Registrar requesting disclosure of the registrant of the disputed domain name, as is customary. Upon receipt of the registration details from the Registrar, notice of the Complaint was sent to the person that the Registrar had disclosed was named as the registrant of the disputed domain name on the Registrar's WhoIs. Correspondence was received by Forum on March 3 and 5, 2026 from that person who credibly stated that they had no connection with the disputed domain name, that they carried on a professional practice with a different website, and that they consented to the requested transfer of the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that on the balance of probabilities, Respondent stole the identity of that named person, who has no connection with the registration or control of the disputed domain name. The email correspondence on record indicates that Complainant is willing to accept the consent to transfer as offered by that named person, which is very understandable in the circumstances. However, as the consent to transfer does not come from the person who is actually the owner and in control of the registration, it follows that the consent to transfer is moot, and the Panel shall proceed to consider and decide on the Complaint. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: REDACTION OF THE RESPONDENT'S NAME For reasons given above, and to protect the person falsely named as the registrant of the disputed domain name, who has been the victim of identity theft, the Panel directs that the name of the Respondent be redacted in this decision. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant claims rights in the NPA mark established by its ownership of the portfolio of registrations, details of which are set out below, and extensive use of the mark by itself and its corporate group in providing online auction services. Complainant submits that it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Copart, Inc., a publicly traded company with a market capitalization of approximately $40 billion (USD) and is a global industry leader in online vehicle auction and remarketing services, with operations worldwide. Copart, Inc. provides vehicle sellers with comprehensive services to process and sell salvage and clean-title vehicles through proprietary online platforms and physical auction facilities. It is submitted that since 1990, Complainant's corporate group has provided a nationwide network of company-owned and staffed auction facilities across the United States and provides both live and online auction services to customers throughout the country under the National Powersport Auctions and NPA brands, including through its principal website at <www.npauctions.com>. Complainant contends that its trademark and service mark registrations for the NPA marks constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the mark and establish Complainant's rights for purposes of the Policy. See, Janus Int'l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, WIPO Case D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) (finding that Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive, and Respondent has the burden of refuting this assumption). Complainant firstly alleges that the disputed domain name <npavctions.com> is identical or confusingly similar to the NPA mark in which it has rights, arguing that the disputed domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety, adding only the intentionally misspelled and descriptive (if properly spelled) term "auctions" and non-distinctive generic Top Level Domain extension <.com>. It is argued that panels established under the Policy have consistently held that misspellings do not distinguish a domain name at issue from a complainant's trademark pursuant to the Policy. See for example Capital One Financial Corp. v. Huang Li Technology Corp c/o Dynadot, FA 1620197 (Forum June 16, 2015) (finding confusing similarity where the respondent misspelled the word "bank" by transposing the letters "a" and "n," attached the gTLD ".com," and eliminated spacing with respect to the CAPITAL ONE BANK mark to create the <capitalonebnak.com> domain name.) Complainant adds that the term "auctions", misspelled as "avctions" in the disputed domain name, is generic term which does not substantially diminish the similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant's mark; and that the gTLD extension <.com> does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant's mark. See Red Hat Inc v. Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the <redhat.org> domain name was identical to the complainant's RED HAT mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the domain name at issue from the mark). Secondly, Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name arguing that: · Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name, and the disputed domain name was registered availing of a privacy service to conceal Respondent's identity; · Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant; · Respondent has neither requested license nor authority to use the NPA mark, nor has Respondent been authorized to use the NPA mark in any manner, see Novartis AG v. Drewcom, FA 1450628 (Forum Aug. 10, 2008) (finding lack of legitimate interest or rights in part because complainant had not licensed or otherwise permitted respondent to use its trademarks); · Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor has Respondent ever made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. It is further alleged that as shown in the screen captures exhibited in an annex to the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolves to a rotating series of third-party websites under what is sometimes known as the "Automatic Rapid Redirection to Malware." Internet users engaging with the disputed domain name are redirected to websites that attempt to install malware on the user's computer. Complainant argues that such use of the disputed domain name indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Copart, Inc. v. Nguyễn Văn Lư, FA 2153114 (Forum, June 11, 2025) ("Under Policy paragraphs 4(c)(i) and (iii), using a disputed domain name to resolve to a page or website that hosts and distributes malware does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy paragraphs 4(c)(i) or (iii)"). Complainant adds that in certain instances the disputed domain name resolves to third party websites that not only feature offerings and links websites offering vehicle auction services that compete with Complainant's business. Lastly Complainant argues that the misspelling of the word "auction", as "avction" in the disputed domain name constitutes typosquatting, which is indicative of neither 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). Complainant submits that typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark or other identifying source identifier, such as a domain name, and then registers the resulting string as a domain name. The registrant hopes that Internet users will: (1) inadvertently type the malformed string when attempting to reach the website associated with the target trademark or domain name, and/or (2) mistakenly confuse the malformed domain name with the trademark owner's genuine domain name when encountering it in search results, emails, or other online contexts. Thirdly Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, arguing: The disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to the NPA mark was registered on February 6, 2026, long after Complainant commenced use of the mark. Respondent must have been fully aware of the disputed domain name when the disputed domain name was registered. Respondent is engaged in typosquatting which constitutes registration in bad faith. The disputed domain name <npavctions.com> is near-identical to Complainant's genuine domain name <npauctions.com>, differing only by the substitution of the letter "u" with the adjacent and visually similar letter "v" in the word "auctions." This minor alteration creates a virtually indistinguishable visual and phonetic equivalent of Complainant's domain name. As a result, there is a substantial likelihood that Internet users will inadvertently mistype Complainant's genuine domain name and be redirected to the disputed domain name. Moreover, when viewed in a search result, URL bar, or email address, the disputed domain name may readily pass for Complainant's official website, allowing Respondent to improperly exploit consumer confusion. Such conduct constitutes classic typosquatting, which panels have consistently held to be inherently indicative of bad faith registration and use. See Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent engaged in typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)). Furthermore, Complainant argues that Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith to redirect users to various malware delivery websites on a rotating basis, which is clearcut bad faith, and disrupts Complainant's business for the commercial gain of Respondent. See Google, Inc. v. Petrovich, FA 1339345 (Forum Sept. 23, 2010) (finding that a disputed domain name which resolves to a landing page that distributes malware to Internet users' computers demonstrates Respondent's bad faith under Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv)). B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. Correspondence was received by Forum on March 3 and 5, 2026 from the person falsely named as the registrant of the disputed domain name. On the balance of probabilities, the Respondent stole the identity of the named person. FINDINGS Complainant is a part of a corporate group that provides online vehicle auction and remarketing services. It owns and uses the NPA mark for which it holds a portfolio of registrations including the following: · United States registered service mark NPA, registration number 5,994,641, registered on the Principal Register on February 25, 2020 for services in international classes 35 and 42; · United States registered service mark NATIONAL POWERSPORT AUCTIONS NPA (design), registration number 5,994,642, registered on the Principal Register on February 25, 2020 for services in international classes 35 and 42; and · United States registered trademark and service mark NPA, registration number 8,040,593. registered on the Principal Register on November 25, 2025, for goods and services in international classes 9 and 36. Complainant's group has an established online presence. Its primary business is providing online auction services, including on its website at <www.npauctions.com>. The disputed domain name <npavctions.com> was registered on February 6, 2026, and resolves to a rotating series of third-party websites. There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint as amended; email correspondence from a person who is the named registrant of the disputed domain name, whose identity was stolen by Respondent who provided false details in the WhoIs for the disputed domain name as described below; and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request for the details of the registration of the disputed domain name for the purposes of this proceeding. 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 provided convincing evidence that rights in the NPA mark established by its ownership of the portfolio of registered trademarks and service marks described above. The disputed domain name <npavctions.com> consists of Complainant's mark in its entirety, in combination with the term "avctions", and the TLD extension <.com>. It is well established that when, as in the present case, a domain name at issue contains a complainant's mark in its entirety a panel may make a finding of confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy. The word "avctions" does not take from the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name and Complainant's mark, and in the circumstances of this case the generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") extension <.com> may be ignored for the purposes of comparison as it would be considered by Internet users to the a technical necessity for a domain name. The Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name <npavctions.com> is confusingly similar to the NPA mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above. The record shows, and the Panel has held that Respondent has stolen the identity of an innocent third party to register the disputed domain name. It follows that Respondent cannot have any rights of legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; it cannot use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; nor can Respondent put the disputed domain name to any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The disputed domain name consists of Complainant's NPA mark in combination with the element "avctions". Given that Complainant's business is hosting online auctions of motor vehicles, the element "avctions" is on the balance of probabilities an intentional misspelling of the word "auctions". The disputed domain name was registered on February 6, 2026, long after Complainant commenced use of the NPA mark. It is most improbable that the registrant of the disputed domain name was unaware of Complainant and its platform when the disputed domain name was chosen and registered, and in fact the use of the word "avctions" indicates that the registrant had actual knowledge of Complainant when the disputed domain name was chosen and registered. On the balance of probabilities, therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was in fact chosen and registered in bad faith with Complainant's mark in mind with the intention of taking predatory advantage of the Complainant's rights and goodwill in the NPA mark. Furthermore, by choosing to combine Complainant's mark with the word "avctions", being a misspelling of "auctions", the Panel finds that Respondent is engaged in typosquatting which in itself constitutes registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel finds that Complainant has not proven that the disputed domain name resolves to websites that deliver malware to Internet visitors as alleged. The screen capture which has been exhibited in an annex to the Complaint shows, on the balance of probabilities that the disputed domain name resolves to the Registrar's parking page which generates links to third party websites. The specific screen capture shows that the links may lead to competitors of Complainant. On the balance of probabilities Respondent intends to generate income from Internet users using those links. On the balance of probabilities, such use is intended to attract and confuse Internet users who are seeking the Complainant's website and cause them to divert their Internet traffic and misdirect it to the Respondent's websites. In addition, such use of the mark is intended to create an initial interest confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website. Such use of the Complainant's trademark within the address of the Respondent's website constitutes use in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy. Finally, the Panel has found that Respondent has stolen the identity of an innocent third party and registered the disputed domain name in their name without license or authority. Giving false registration details and identity theft each constitutes registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. As this Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, the Complainant has succeeded in the third element of the test in Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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 <npavctions.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. James Bridgeman SC Panelist Dated: March 15, 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.