Copartoficial.com

The timeline behind copartoficial.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. Eliezer Rocha Claim Number: FA2607002234876 PARTIES Complainant is Copart, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Rob LeBlanc of Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is Eliezer Rocha ("Respondent"), Brazil. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <copartoficial.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. 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 July 25, 2026. Forum received payment on July 25, 2026. On July 28, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <copartoficial.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 4, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 24, 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@copartoficial.com. Also on August 4, 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 August 25, 2026, 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. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: CONCURRENT COURT PROCEEDINGS On October 9, 2025, a consumer filed Case No. 4003975-15.2025.8.26.0477 in the 3rd Civil Court of the Comarca of Praia Grande, State of São Paulo, Brazil (the "Brazilian Proceeding"), identifying the domain name <copartoficial.com> as an instrument of fraud and requesting emergency court orders suspending the domain name, which was first registered on January 6, 2025 and used to impersonate Complainant. On November 12, 2025, the Brazilian court ordered GoDaddy — identified as the registrar of record — to suspend the domain name and block associated content. GoDaddy has complied with that order. The earlier registration expired on January 6, 2026. The domain name was then re-registered on April 1, 2026, in the name of Respondent, Eliezer Rocha. Rule 18(a) provides: "In the event of any legal proceedings initiated prior to or during an administrative proceeding in respect of a domain-name dispute that is the subject of the complaint, the Panel shall have the discretion to decide whether to suspend or terminate the administrative proceeding, or to proceed to a decision." The Brazilian Proceeding is currently pending. Neither Complainant nor Respondent are named parties to that proceeding, in which the plaintiff claims redress for consumer fraud, restitution of transferred funds, and allocation of potential liability among several defendants involved in a January 2025 transaction. The Brazilian court is not being asked to determine any of the issues in this Administrative Proceeding. Under these circumstances the Panel will proceed to a decision, noting that the only effect of the order of the Brazilian court in relation to the domain name is that it will remain suspended until further order. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Copart, Inc. ("Complainant" or "Copart") is a publicly traded company with a market capitalization of around $26 billion (USD) that is an industry leader of online vehicle auction services with operations worldwide. For 44 years, Copart has provided goods and services related to the resale of vehicles under its famous common law and registered trademark COPART, including through the website <copart.com>, among others. Because the registration at issue in this Complaint was created on April 1, 2026 in the name of the current Respondent, Complainant contends that Respondent's acquisition and passive holding of the domain name constitute bad-faith registration and use under the Policy. The <copartoficial.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's COPART marks. Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the <copartoficial.com> domain name. There is no evidence to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by COPART, or that Respondent operates a business or other organization under that name. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and has not been authorized to use the COPART mark 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 presently does not resolve because of the operative suspension or lock, and there is no evidence that the current Respondent made any bona fide offering or legitimate noncommercial use before that suspension was applied. In fact patterns identical to that found in the instant case, it has consistently been found that the respondent does not have rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See e.g. S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Bryan Shanagan, FA 2075527 (Forum Jan. 10, 2024); Unanet, Inc. v. Jamell Tyson, FA 2022602 (Forum Dec. 30, 2022); and Morgan Stanley v. Francis Mccarthy / Baltec Marine Llc, FA 1785347 (Forum June 8, 2018). Accordingly, the same should be found in this matter. Respondent registered and is using the <copartoficial.com> 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. The domain name presently does not resolve because it is subject to the Brazilian court-ordered suspension or lock. Complainant therefore does not rely on the present non-resolution, standing alone, as evidence of Respondent's bad faith. Rather, bad faith is established by the totality of the circumstances, including Respondent's deliberate selection of a domain name combining Complainant's famous COPART mark with the Portuguese word "oficial"; the domain name's documented prior use to impersonate that platform and defraud consumers; Respondent's acquisition of the identical domain name shortly after the prior registration expired; and the absence of any plausible good-faith use of a domain name that represents itself as Copart's "official" website. The domain name was registered on April 1, 2026, which is decades after Complainant's mark become world famous via extensive global revenue of several billion dollars annually. Accordingly, given that the domain name consists of Complainant's famous COPART mark combined with the Portuguese word for "official," it is inconceivable that the current Respondent registered the domain name without actual knowledge of Complainant's mark. Passive holding of a domain name may be characterized as a disruption to a complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Moreover, it prevents Complainant from registering and using the domain name for its own business operations. When Internet users seeking Complainant's website enter the domain name on their browser they are directed to Respondent's website, which gives the false impression that something is wrong with Complainant or its website and thereby harms Complainant's reputation and goodwill. There are no other global businesses 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 its focus on autos/automobiles. Lastly, that Respondent is using a Whois privacy service to shield Respondent's contact information is evidence of bad faith use and registration. 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 3.1 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 service mark COPART, including USPTO Registration No. 3,941,221, registered on April 5, 2011, for inter alia online auction services, in International Class 35. It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.7. The Panel finds Respondent's <copartoficial.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's COPART mark, only differing by the addition of the Portuguese word for "official", which is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See 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 a 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 <copartoficial.com> domain name was first registered on January 6, 2025. It expired on January 6, 2026 and was re-registered in the name of Respondent on April 1, 2026, many years after the registration of Complainant's famous COPART mark. As noted above, GoDaddy has complied with the November 2025 order of the Brazilian court to suspend the domain name and block associated content. Accordingly, the domain name does not presently resolve to an active website. 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 <copartoficial.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA 1849706 (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 3.1, 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 was fully aware of Complainant's famous and distinctive COPART mark when Respondent registered the <copartoficial.com> domain name and that Respondent did so in bad faith with intent to take unfair advantage of Complainant's mark. Although the <copartoficial.com> domain name does not resolve to an active website and was registered during the pendency of the Brazilian court proceedings, as in the leading case of Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, the Panel finds that 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 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 <copartoficial.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Alan L. Limbury, Panelist Dated: August 26, 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.