About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Carvana, LLC v. Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD

Case No. D2020-2771

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Carvana, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, United States.

The Respondent is Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, Panama.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name, <carvanam.com> (the “Domain Name”), is registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited dba Register Matrix (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 21, 2020. On October 22, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On October 28, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 29, 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 October 30, 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 November 2, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 22, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 23, 2020.

The Center appointed Tony Willoughby as the sole panelist in this matter on December 1, 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.

The invitation to the Complainant to file an amended Complaint stemmed from the fact that at the time of filing the Complaint the Complainant was unable to identify the name of the registrant and filed the Complaint against “Unidentified Registrant”. In response to the Center’s registrar verification request, the Registrar identified the above named Respondent as the registrant of the Domain Name.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is an Arizona, United States limited liability company, which commenced business in 2013. It is engaged in the online business of selling secondhand automobiles and providing automobile financing services. It conducts its business through its website at “www.carvana.com”.

The Complainant is the registered proprietor of several United States trade mark registrations covering the name, “Carvana”, the earliest of which is No. 4328785 CARVANA (standard character mark) registered on April 30, 2013 (application filed on April 11, 2011) in classes 35 and 36 for online dealership and financing services relating to automobiles. The registration features a “first use in commerce” claim of January 27, 2013.

The Domain Name was registered on September 10, 2020 and currently (for the Panel’s geo-location in England) re-directs through a series of sites to a website at <20cogs.co.uk>, inviting one to “Make money in [one’s] spare time!” through “completing Competitions, Offers, Gaming and Surveys.” The website claims tohave paid over GBP 2,490,724 to its members.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that this is a typical case of typosquatting and that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CARVANA registered trade mark. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. General

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights: and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name: and

(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name comprises “carvanam” and the generic “.com” Top Level Domain identifier.

Section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) explains the test for identity or confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy and includes the following passage:

“While each case is judged on its own merits, in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing.”

The Complainant’s CARVANA trade mark is readily recognizable in its entirety in the Domain Name. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

As indicated above, the Complainant contends that this unauthorized use of a variant of its trade mark is a classic case of typosquatting. The Respondent selected the Domain Name for its close similarity to the Complainant’s trade mark and even closer similarity to the Complainant’s <carvana.com> domain name, which the Complainant uses for its operating website.

The Complainant has produced evidence to show that, prior to the filing of the Complaint, the Respondent was using the Domain Name both to connect to the websites of automobile manufacturers (the example provided is Volvo) and to connect to parking pages featuring advertising links such as “Auto Dealership Inventory Management Software”, “Keystone Hmo Plan”, Low Interest Used Car Financing”, “Used Car Insurance Rates” and “Obelink Camping Shop”. The Complainant observes that its name, “Carvana”, is not a dictionary word and that, given the predominance of automobile-related destinations to which the Domain Name leads, it is clear that the Respondent’s aim from the outset has been to target the Complainant’s business.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent’s purpose is to attract visitors to the Respondent’s website on the back of the fame of the Complainant’s CARVANA trade mark and to earn advertising revenue from the visitors’ use of the advertising links on the website.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case under this element of the Policy, in other words a case calling for an answer from the Respondent. The Panel agrees with the Complainant that such a use of a domain name cannot give rise to rights or legitimate interests in respect of a domain name.

The Respondent has elected not to respond to the Complainant’s contentions. In the absence of any explanation from the Respondent, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and has been using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy provides that registration of a domain name for the purpose of using it to attract Internet users to the registrant’s website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the registrant’s web site constitutes bad faith registration and use for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

The Panel has found that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CARVANA registered trade mark. The Panel has accepted the Complainant’s unchallenged contention that the Respondent intentionally selected the Domain Name for its confusing similarity to the Complainant’s CARVANA registered trade mark and <carvana.com> domain name. The use that the Respondent has made of the Domain Name as described in sections 4 and 6C above has clearly been a use for commercial gain derived through the advertising links, many of which have been targeting the Complainant’s field of activity. Internet user confusion based upon the similarity of the Domain Name with both the Complainant’s CARVANA registered trade mark and its <carvana.com> domain name lies at the heart of the Respondent’s enterprise.

The Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) 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 Domain Name, <carvanam.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Tony Willoughby
Sole Panelist
Date: December 2, 2020

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/