Cashcarstx.com

The timeline behind cashcarstx.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 Sonic Divisional Operations, LLC v. shahin nia / autonet Claim Number: FA2607002235554 PARTIES Complainant is Sonic Divisional Operations, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by William B. Cannon of Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, North Carolina, USA. Respondent is shahin nia / autonet ("Respondent"), Texas, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <cashcarstx.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. 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. Héctor Ariel Manoff as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 28, 2026; Forum received payment on July 28, 2026. On July 30, 2026, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <cashcarstx.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@cashcarstx.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 Héctor Ariel Manoff 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 1- Complainant, Sonic Divisional Operations, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sonic Automotive, Inc., which was established in 1966 and is one of the largest automotive and powersports retailers in the United States. 2- Complainant owns U.S. trademark registrations for the CARCASH trademark, registered on October 29, 2019 and the domain name <carcash.com> registered in 1995. 3- The CARCASH platform and <carcash.com> are operated by affiliated Sonic entities. 4- The disputed domain name, <cashcarstx.com>, incorporates the verbal components of the CARCASH trademark in reverse order, adding a plural "s", the geographic abbreviation "TX" and the gTLD ".com". 5- The domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. 6- Respondent's website uses the branding "CarCashTX", which confirms the intended reference to Complainant's trademarks. 7- Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. 8- The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Sonic Divisional Operations, LLC owns CARCASH trademark as from October 29, 2019, and has used it in connection with car buying services. Complainant owns <carcash.com> since 1995. Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2025 and is using it in bad faith. 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 argues that its trademark and domain name is confusingly similar to the disputed domain name and this fact has not been rebutted by Respondent. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <cashcarstx.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's CARCASH mark, in which Complainant has rights. (Exhibit B). The only difference is the inclusion of the two words (CAR and CASH) but in reversed order, with the addition of the letter "s", the geographic abbreviation "TX" and the .com gTLD. The Panel concludes that these slight differences can lead the consumers into confusion about the services identified. See Acme Lift Company, L.L.C. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1607039 (Forum Apr. 11, 2015) (stating, "Where a respondent has created a domain name in an effort to visually deceive Internet users via a simple misspelling (and when such misspellings are visually similar to the mark), a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is appropriate."). See also Lucasfilm Entertainment Company Ltd. LLC v George Ring, FA 1673825 (Forum June 7, 2016) (finding that, although a respondent's domain name <lukasfilm.com> incorporated the LUCASFILM mark of another and merely substituted a 'k' for the 'c,' it was nonetheless confusingly similar to that mark). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to CARCASH mark, in which Complainant has rights, under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the CARCASH mark. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). In addition, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <cashcarstx.com> domain name. Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), relevant WHOIS information, among other evidence, may demonstrate that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name). In this case, according to the information provided, Respondent is mentioned as shahin nia / autonet and Respondent has not submitted evidence on the contrary. Thus, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Further, Respondent has neither filed a response nor submitted evidence to prove that Respondent has any trademark rights on the disputed domain name. The evidence submitted by Complainant (included on pages 5 and 6) shows that Respondent's use of the disputed domain <cashcarstx.com> is not a bona fide offering of goods. The domain name resolves to a web page which offers goods and services (automotive dealership services), that compete with Complainant and the trademark shown on the site is identical to Complainant's one: CAR CASH, not in the reversed order as the domain name. This Panel agrees with Complainant that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial use or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii). Therefore, the Panel agrees that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and does not have legitimate interest under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The domain registration by Respondent was done in June 2025 according to the information provided (Exhibit A), it is more than 6 years after Complainant registered and started using its trademark (Exhibit B) and more than 30 years after Complainant's domain name registration for <carcash.com> in 1995 (Exhibit D). The disputed domain name <cashcarstx.com> was registered by including the exact mark in the reversed order, with the addition of a letter "s" at the end followed by TX and the .com gTLD. The Panel also finds that Respondent's website includes Complainant's trademark CARCASH (pages 5 and 6 on the complaint) and not in the reversed order as the disputed domain name. The Panel points out that Respondent has already been involved in a conflict with Complainant related to an almost identical domain name <carcashtx.com> (See Sonic Divisional Operations, LLC v. shahin nia / autonet, FA 2150449 (Forum May 6, 2025). A decision against Respondent was issued on May 6, 2025 and Respondent registered the current disputed domain name in June. It is clear the bad faith in this action too. Thus, it is clear for the Panel that the registration and used was done in bad faith. See Nautica Apparel, Inc. v. Web Commerce Communications Limited / Client Care, FA 2084211 (Forum March 3, 2024) ("On the resolving website, Respondent uses the NAUTICA trademarks and images of products bearing NAUTICA trademarks. Respondent has no reason to use the NAUTICA trademarks in the domain names or on the associated website other than to attract internet users to its site for commercial gain. Thus, Respondent is intentionally trying to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement.") In addition, the Panel points out that Respondent has neither refuted nor submitted evidence on the Complainant's grounds about registration and use in bad faith. The Panel concludes that Respondent has the intention of creating an association with Complainant and its products and services. This Panel concludes that Respondent has registered the domain name with the intent to attract and divert Internet users to the corresponding websites for its own benefit. See Carey Int'l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Forum July 29, 2005) ("[T]he Panel finds that Respondent is capitalizing on the confusing similarity of its domain names to benefit from the valuable goodwill that Complainant has established in its marks. Consequently, it is found that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."); The Panel determines that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 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 <cashcarstx.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Héctor Ariel Manoff, Panelist Dated: September 3, 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.