The Complainant is Carvana, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner, United States.
The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 29, 2021. On January 29, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On January 29, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and 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 February 3, 2021 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 February 5, 2021. 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 February 10, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 2, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 9, 2021. The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on April 15, 2021. 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 is the owner of the trade mark CARVANA, registered, inter alia, in the United States under Registration No. 4,328,785, filed on April 11, 2011 and registered on April 30, 2013, for car dealership and loan services. The Domain Name registered in 2020 has been used for pay per click links. The Respondent has registered many other domain names containing the trade marks or signs confusingly similar to the trade marks of third parties with which she is not associated. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark CARVANA, registered, inter alia, in the United States for car dealership and loan services since 2013. The Domain Name registered in 2020 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark adding only the dictionary word “jobs” and a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, which do not prevent said confusing similarity. The Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and is not authorised by the Complainant. The Respondent has used the Domain Name for commercial pay per click links re job listings. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. It is bad faith registration and use in opportunistic bad faith diverting Internet users away from the Complainant’s official site. The Respondent has registered many domain names containing the trade marks or signs confusingly similar to the trade marks of third parties with which she is not associated. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Domain Name in this Complaint combines the Complainant’s CARVANA mark (registered in the United States for car dealership and loan services since 2013), the dictionary word “jobs” and the gTLD “.com”. The addition of a dictionary word and a gTLD does not negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a trade mark contained within it. The addition of the dictionary word “jobs” and the gTLD “.com” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s CARVANA mark, which is still clearly recognisable in the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not authorised the use of its CARVANA mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. The Complainant has produced prima facie evidence that the Respondent has used the website attached to the Domain Name for pay per click links, which is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Complainant has also produced evidence that the Respondent has registered many domain names containing the trade marks or signs confusingly similar to the trade marks of third parties with which she is not associated. The Respondent has not responded to this Complaint or explained why she should be entitled to register a domain name containing the Complainant’s mark and use it for pay per click links. As such, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Domain Name has been used for commercial pay per click links, which is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the website might reasonably believe services offered on that website are connected to or approved by the Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to her website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of that website or services offered on it. This is also likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. Further, the Complainant has produced evidence that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of activity of cybersquatting registering numerous domain names containing the trade marks or signs confusingly similar to the trade marks of third parties with which she is not associated. As such, the Panel believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb 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 Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Date: April 22, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy