The Complainant is Carvana, LLC, United States of America (the “United States” or “US”), represented by Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, Panama.
The disputed domain name <carvvanna.com> is registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited dba Register Matrix (the “Registrar”).
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 18, 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 19, 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 19, 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 23, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 13, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 15, 2020.
The Center appointed George R. F. Souter as the sole panelist in this matter on July 20, 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 Complainant is a US corporation which operates an e-commerce platform for buying and selling used cars, including vehicle dealership services and automobile financing services throughout the United States, under its CARVANA trademark. In 2019, the Complainant sold more than 175,000 vehicles, generating a vehicle sales revenue exceeding USD 3 billion (3 billion United States dollars). The Complainant advertises its services widely across the United States.
The Complainant is the proprietor of a number of US trademark registrations of its CARVANA trademark, including US Registration No 4,328,785, applied for on April 11, 2011 and registered on April 30, 2013.
The disputed domain name was registered on June 16, 2020, and resolves to a website which automatically redirects users to third party websites, including competitor websites to that of the Complainant, and fraudulent websites.
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its CARVANA trademark, differing only from the Complainant’s trademark by having a double “v” and a double “n”.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, in particular that, to the best of the Complainant’s knowledge, it is not generally known by the disputed domain name, and that the Complainant has never granted permission to the Respondent to use its CARVANA trademark in connection with a domain name, or otherwise.
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, and is being used in bad faith.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements that the Complainant must prove to merit a finding that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant:
(i) the disputed 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 in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel is satisfied from the information provided that the Complainant has sufficient rights in its CARVANA trademark for the purposes of these proceedings.
It is well-established in prior decisions under the UDRP, with which the Panel agrees, that a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) indicator is irrelevant when comparing a trademark with a disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel considers the “.com” indicator to be irrelevant in the circumstances of the present case, and so finds.
It has been well-established in prior decisions under the UDRP that a disputed domain name which wholly contains a complainant’s well-known trademark together with the mere addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity between a trademark and a disputed domain name. In the circumstances of the present case, the Panel considers that the mere doubling of the consonants “v” and “n” of CARVANA, which would not materially affect the pronunciation of the Complainant’s mark, does not distract from the Complainant’s CARVANA trademark being clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. The Panel, accordingly, finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CARVANA trademark, and that the Complainant has satisfied the test of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
It is the consensus view of UDRP panels, with which the Panel agrees, that a prima facie case advanced by the complainant will generally be sufficient for the complainant to be deemed to have satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, provided the respondent does not come forward with evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and the complainant has presented a sufficient prima facie case to succeed under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
The Panel considers the submissions put forward by the Complainant as sufficient to be regarded as a prima facie case, and the Respondent did not take the opportunity to advance any claim of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name to rebut this prima facie case.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
The Panel is of the view that the finding that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name can lead, in appropriate circumstances, to a finding of registration of a disputed domain name in bad faith. The circumstances of the present case, in which the Panel is convinced that the Complainant’s distinctive CARVANA trademark was deliberately appropriated in the disputed domain name, are such that the Panel concludes that a finding of registration in bad faith is justified, and so finds.
It is well-established in prior decisions under the Policy that the use of a disputed domain name in connection with a website offering goods or services competing with those of the Complainant is sufficient to justify a finding of use in bad faith, and, in the circumstances of the present case, the Panel so finds.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
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 <carvvanna.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
George R. F. Souter
Sole Panelist
Date: August 3, 2020