[Indexed as: Copart, Inc. v. SalvageNow]
[Indexed as: COPART.NET]
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
Administrative Panel Decision
Case No. D2000-0417
Commenced: 11 May 2000.
Judgement: 28 June 2000.
Sole Panelist: M. Scott Donahey
Domain name - Domain name dispute resolution policy - U.S. Service mark - U.S. Trademark - Identical - Confusingly similar - Bad faith registration - Bad faith use.
Complainant registered domain name COPART.COM in January 1996. Complainant has registered the trademark "CI Copart Inc. Salvage Auto Auctions" as of January 17, 1995. Complainant has used the "Copart" mark or a derivation thereof since 1983. Complainant had approximately 5,939,406 unique visitors to its "www.copart.com" website from April 1, 2000, to May 9, 2000. Respondent is in the same business as Complainant. During the period January through May 2000, there were only five direct hits on Respondent's website resulting from the entry of "www.copart.net" which linked to the SalvageNow website.
Held, Domain name not transferred.
Since both parties are domiciled in the United States, and since
United States courts have adjudicated on similar issues, to the extent
that it would assist the Panel in determining whether the Complainant has
met its burden as established by Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel
shall look to rules and principles of law set out in decisions of the courts
of the United States.
The domain name at issue is not identical to nor substantially similar
to the mark registered and used by the Complainant, "CI Copart Inc. Salvage
Auto Auctions."
Because the Panel has determined that the domain name at issue is
not identical or substantially similar to a trademark in which the Complainant
has rights, there is no need to determine whether the Respondent has rights
or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. Nor is it
necessary to determine whether the domain name was registered and is being
used in bad faith.
Policies referred to
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy
Donahey, Panelist: -
1. The Parties
1.1 The Complainant is Copart, Inc., a corporation having its principal
place of business at 5500 E. Second Street, Benicia, California, United
States of America.
1.2 The Respondent is SalvageNow, having its principal place of business
at 123 N.W. 13th Street, Suite 312, Boca Raton, Florida, United States
of America.
2. The Domain Name(s) and Registrar(s)
The domain name at issue is <copart.net>, which domain name is registered
with Network Solutions, Inc., based in Herndon, Virginia.
3. Procedural History
3.1 A Complaint was submitted electronically to the World Intellectual
Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "WIPO Center")
on May 11, 2000, and the signed original together with four copies forwarded
by express courier was received on May 15, 2000. An Acknowledgment of Receipt
was sent by the WIPO Center to the Complainant, dated May 11, 2000.
3.2 On May 11, 2000, a Request for Registrar Verification was transmitted
to the registrar, Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI") requesting it to: (1)
confirm that the domain name at in issue is registered with NSI; (2) confirm
that the person identified as the Respondent is the current registrant
of the domain name; (3) provide the full contact details (i.e., postal
address(es), telephone number(s), facsimile number(s), e-mail address(es))
available in the registrars Whois database for the registrant of the disputed
domain name, the technical contact, the administrative contact and the
billing contact; (4) confirm that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Policy (the "Policy") is in effect; (5) indicate the current status of
the domain name.
3.3 On May 14, 2000, NSI confirmed by reply e-mail that the domain
name <copart.net> is registered with NSI, is currently in active status,
and that the Respondent, SalvageNow, is the current registrant of the name.
The registrar also forwarded the requested Whois details, and confirmed
that the Policy is in effect.
3.4 The WIPO Center determined that the Complaint satisfies the formal
requirements of the Policy, the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution
Policy (the "Uniform Rules") and the Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules"). The Panel has
independently determined and agrees with the assessment of the WIPO Center
that the Complaint is in formal compliance with the requirements of the
Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, adopted by the Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") on August 26, 1999
(the "Policy"), the Uniform Rules, and the Supplemental Rules. The required
fees for a single-member Panel were paid on time and in the required amount
by the Complainant.
3.5 No formal deficiencies having been recorded, on May 16, 2000, a
Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding
(the "Commencement Notification") was transmitted to the Respondent (with
copies to the Complainant, NSI and ICANN), setting a deadline of June 4,
2000, by which the Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint. The
Commencement Notification was transmitted to the Respondent by courier
and by e-mail to the e-mail addresses indicated in the Complaint. Evidence
of proper notice is provided by the evidence in the record of the Respondents
participation in these proceedings.
3.6 A response by email was received on June 4, 2000, and the hard
copy of the response was received on June 9, 2000. On June 4, 2000 the
WIPO Center transmitted an Acknowledgement of Receipt (Response).
3.7 On June 13, 2000, having received M. Scott Donaheys Statement
of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, the WIPO
Center transmitted to the parties a Notification of Appointment of Administrative
Panel and Projected Decision Date, in which M. Scott Donahey was formally
appointed as the Sole Panelist. The Projected Decision Date was June 26,
2000, which was subsequently extended to June 29, 2000. The Sole Panelist
finds that the Administrative Panel was properly constituted and appointed
in accordance with the Uniform Rules and the WIPO Supplemental Rules.
4. Factual Background
4.1 Complainant registered <copart.com> in January 1996.
4.2 Complainant has registered the trademark "CI Copart Inc. Salvage
Auto Auctions" as of January 17, 1995.
4.3 Complainant has used the "Copart" mark or a derivation thereof
since 1983.
4.4 Complainant had approximately 5,939,406 unique visitors to its
"www.copart.com" website from April 1, 2000, to May 9, 2000.
4.5 Respondent is in the same business as Complainant.
4.6 During the period January through May 2000 there were only five
direct hits on Respondent's website resulting from the entry of "www.copart.net"
which linked to the SalvageNow website.
5. Parties Contentions
5.1 Complainant contends that Respondent has registered as a domain
name a mark which is identical to the service mark registered and used
by Complainant, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in
respect of the domain name at issue, and that Respondent has registered
and is using the domain name at issue in bad faith.
5.2 Respondent denies that the domain name at issue is identical or
confusingly similar to the trademark registered and used by the Complainant.
Respondent contends that it has rights or legitimate interests in respect
of the domain name at issue and that it did not register, nor is it using,
the domain name in bad faith.
6. Discussion and Findings
6.1 Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles
the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: "A Panel shall decide a
complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance
with the Policy, these Rules, and any rules and principles of law that
it deems applicable."
6.2 Since both the Complainant and Respondent are domiciled in the
United States, and since United States courts have recent experience with
similar disputes, to the extent that it would assist the Panel in determining
whether the Complainant has met its burden as established by Paragraph
4(a) of the Policy, the Panel shall look to rules and principles of law
set out in decisions of the courts of the United States.
6.3 Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must
prove each of the following:
1) that the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or
confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant
has rights; and,
2) that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the
domain name; and,
3) the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
6.4 The domain name at issue <copart.net> is not identical to nor
substantially similar to the mark registered and used by Complainant, "CI
Copart Inc. Salvage Auto Auctions."
6.5 Because the Panel has determined that the domain name at issue
is not identical or substantially similar to a trademark in which the Complainant
has rights, there is no need to determine whether the Respondent has rights
or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. Policy, 4(a)(i)
and (ii).
6.6 Nor is it necessary to determine whether the domain name was registered
and is being used in bad faith. Policy, 4(a)(iii)
6.7 Accordingly, the Panel declines to determine matters unnecessary
to a resolution of the rights of the parties.
7. Decision
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Panel decides that the domain
name registered by Respondent is not identical or substantially similar
to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights. Accordingly, the
Panel finds in favor of the Respondent.
M. Scott Donahey
Sole Panelist
Dated: June 28, 2000
Domain Name Not Transferred