WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Carvana, LLC v. Perfect Privacy, LLC / Latanya Moore
Case No. D2020-1570
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Carvana, LLC, United States of America (“United States or “U.S”), represented by Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Perfect Privacy, LLC, United States / Latanya Moore, United States.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <carvanakars.com> is registered with Register.com (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 16, 2020. On June 16, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 17, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 18, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 18, 2020.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 19, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 9, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 10, 2020.
The Center appointed William R. Towns as the sole panelist in this matter on July 16, 2020. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background
The Complainant, established in Atlanta, Georgia in January 2013, is a leading e-commerce platform for buying and selling used cars. The Complainant is the holder of multiple United States trademark registrations for its CARVANA mark issued United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as follows:
U.S. Reg. No. 4328785, filed April 11, 2011, and registered on April 30, 2013 (covering online automobile dealership services and online financing services including automobile loans);
U.S. Reg. No. 5022315, filed January 7, 2016, and registered on August 16, 2016 (covering automobile shipping, pickup, and delivery services);
U.S. reg. No. 6037292, filed November 13, 2019, and registered on April 21, 2020 (stylized) (covering online dealership services; extended warranty and service contracts; shipping, pickup, and delivery services).
The Complainant also has registered the mark CARVANACARE, U.S. Reg. No. 4971997, filed May 15, 2015, and registered on June 7, 2016 (covering extended warranty and service contracts).
The Complainant CARVANA marks have been used in commerce since as early as January 2013. The Complainant has realized substantial growth in sales through its website at “www.carvana.com”. As of the year ended December 31, 2019, the number of vehicles sold to retail customers grew by 88.7% to 177,549 cars, compared to 94,108 cars in the year ended December 31, 2018, and 44,252 cars sold in the year ended December 31, 2017. The Complainant’s website currently averages more than 5 million unique visitors monthly.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <carvanakars.com> on April 1, 2020, according the Registrar’s WhoIs records. The disputed domain name currently resolves to a website purportedly advertising a used vehicle for sale for USD 1,400. The website also includes what appears to be a pay-per-click (PPC) link to a site offering customizable webpage designs.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CARVANA mark, observing that the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s mark in its entirety. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s CARVANA mark aside from the suffix “kars”, which the Complainant describes as an obvious misspelling of the word “cars” and descriptive of the Complainant’s core business. The Complainant maintains that the misspelling of this descriptive term does not obviate confusion. According to the Complainant, Internet consumers are likely to be misled into visiting virtual locations when encountering the confusingly similar domain name. The Complainant emphasizes that it operates as an online business.
The Complainant maintains that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant states that the Respondent has not been authorized by the Complainant to use the disputed domain name, and that the Complainant’s CARVANA mark is well known. The Complainant maintains that the Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name, and has neither used nor made demonstrable preparations to use the dispute disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant further observes that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or other fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent either is using the disputed domain name to compete directly with the Complainant or else is committing online car sale fraud. The Complainant submits that a fair private-party purchase price for a vehicle similar to that offered for sale by the Respondent – even in its poorest condition – would be worth more than three times the Respondent’s asking price. The Complainant also notes that the Respondent’s website does not include the location of the Respondent’s car, or how the vehicle will be delivered, and who will be responsible for the cost of delivery after purchase. The Complainant insists that “Carvana” is an invented English word that third parties would not legitimately choose other than to create a false impression of association with the Complainant.
The Complainant maintains that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent created the disputed domain name to trade on the reputation and goodwill of the Complaint and the Complainant’s CARVANA marks for financial gain, diverting Internet users from the Complainant’s primary website to the Respondent’s “www.carvanakars.com” website. The Complainant submits that such conduct is uniformly recognized as constituting bad faith under the Policy.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent, in the absence of any intellectual property rights in the disputed domain name or any connection of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s products or services, is guilty of “opportunistic bad faith.” The Complainant reiterates based upon information and belief that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in order to commit fraud. The Complainant maintains that the Respondent’s website is “extremely similar” to content found on several other websites, all of which feature the same Respondent’s contact email address.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Scope of the Policy
The Policy is addressed to resolving disputes concerning allegations of abusive domain name registration and use. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v. Bay Verte Machinery, Inc. d/b/a The Power Tool Store, WIPO Case No. D2002-0774. Accordingly, the jurisdiction of this Panel is limited to providing a remedy in cases of “the abusive registration of domain names”, also known as “cybersquatting”. Weber-Stephen Products Co. v. Armitage Hardware, WIPO Case No. D2000-0187. See Final Report of the First WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, April 30, 1999, paragraphs 169-177. The term “cybersquatting” is most frequently used to describe the deliberate, bad faith abusive registration of a domain name in violation of rights in trademarks or service marks. Id. at paragraph 170. Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules provides that the panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any other rules or principles of law that the panel deems applicable.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the complainant prove each of the following three elements to obtain a decision that a domain name should be either cancelled or transferred:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Cancellation or transfer of the domain name is the sole remedy provided to the complainant under the Policy, as set forth in paragraph 4(i).
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets forth four situations under which the registration and use of a domain name is deemed to be in bad faith, but does not limit a finding of bad faith to only these situations.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy in turn identifies three means through which a respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. Although the complainant bears the ultimate burden of establishing all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, UDRP panels have recognized that this could result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, requiring information that is primarily, if not exclusively, within the knowledge of the respondent. Thus, the view is that the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with evidence of a right or legitimate interest in the domain name, once the complainant has made a prima facie showing. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1. See, e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <carvanakars.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CARVANA mark, in which the Complainant has established rights through registration and use. In considering identity and confusing similarity, the first element of the Policy serves essentially as a standing requirement.1 The threshold inquiry under the first element of the Policy involves a relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name.
In this instance, the Complainant’s CARVANA mark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name.2 The inclusion of the term “kars” in the disputed domain name does not serve to dispel the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s mark. When the relevant trademark is recognizable in the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not preclude a finding of confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.3 Generic top-level domains (“gTLDs”) generally are disregarded when evaluating the identity or confusing similarity of the Complainant’s mark to the disputed domain name under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, irrespective of any ordinary meaning that might be ascribed to the gTLD.4
Accordingly, the Panel finds the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
As noted above, once the complainant makes a prima facie showing under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(c) shifts the burden of production to the respondent to come forward with evidence of rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. The Panel is persuaded from the record of this case that a prima facie showing under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been made. It is undisputed that the Respondent has not been authorized to use the Complainant’s CARVANA mark. The Respondent notwithstanding has registered the disputed domain name, which incorporates the Complainant’s CARVANA mark in its entirety, and resolves to the “www.carvanakars.com” website, where the Respondent appears to be offering a used vehicle for sale. The Respondent’s website does not disclaim any endorsement by or affiliation with the Complainant.
Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, a respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in a domain name by demonstrating any of the following:
(i) before any notice to it of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, even if it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The Respondent, as previously discussed, has not submitted a formal response to the Complaint, in the absence of which the Panel may accept all reasonable inferences and allegations in the Complaint as true. See Talk City, Inc. v. Michael Robertson, WIPO Case No. D2000-0009. The Panel has carefully reviewed the record in this case, and finds nothing therein that would bring the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name within any of the “safe harbors” of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.
The Panel concludes based on the record in this case that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and had the Complainant’s distinctive CARVANA mark in mind when registering the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name appropriates the Complainant’s mark in its entirety, and the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name with the “www.carvanakars.com” website is likely to convey to Internet users the false impression that the Respondent’s website is affiliated with, sponsored, or endorsed by the Complainant.
UDRP panels generally have found that a domain name appropriating a complainant’s trademark plus an additional term, as is the case here, carries a risk of implied affiliation if it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. See WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 2.5 and 2.5.1. The use of a domain name cannot be “fair” if it suggests a non-existent affiliation with the trademark owner. See 201 Folsom Option JV, L.P. and 201 Folsom Acquisition, L.P. v. John Kirkpatrick, WIPO Case No. D2014-1359; Project Management Institute v. CMN.com, WIPO Case No. D2013-2035. There is no disclaimer on th Respondent’s website, an omission by the Respondent that in the Panel’s judgment likely was intentional.
In view of the foregoing, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has neither used nor demonstrated preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, and that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Further, there is no indication that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.
Accordingly, the Panel finds the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, shall be considered evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant (the owner of the trademark or service mark) or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) circumstances indicating that the respondent is using the domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
The examples of bad faith registration and use set forth in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy are not meant to be exhaustive of all circumstances from which such bad faith may be found. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. The overriding objective of the Policy is to curb the abusive registration of domain names in circumstances where the registrant seeks to profit from and exploit the trademark of another. See Match.com, LP v. Bill Zag and NWLAWS.ORG, WIPO Case No. D2004-0230.
For the reasons discussed under this and the preceding heading, the Panel considers that the Respondent’s conduct in this case constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. As previously noted, the Panel finds that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and had the Complainant’s CARVANA mark in mind when registering the disputed domain name. The Panel concludes that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name intentionally to attract for commercial gain Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or products displayed on the Respondent’s website.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <carvanakars.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
William R. Towns
Sole Panelist
Date: July 20, 2020
1 See WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.7 .
2 See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8 and cases cited therein.
3 Id.
4 See WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.11 .