Mark by only adding an additional letter “n”. This is a clear case of typosquatting, and the disputed domain name is nearly identical and confusingly...
2022-03-28 - Case Details
difference being the substitution of the letter “L” by a letter “i” which results in a situation of typosquatting. The addition of the generic Top-Level-Domain...
2022-02-08 - Case Details
the insertion of a letter “g” and constitutes “typosquatting”. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in...
2021-07-01 - Case Details
trademark has been found by UDRP panelists to be a common, and illicit, form of typosquatting that does not make a domain name any less “identical or...
2021-01-20 - Case Details
the SCREENING EAGLE trademark, but replacing the second “e” of the trademark with a letter “a” in the disputed domain name ( i.e. , typosquatting...
2021-01-20 - Case Details
Marks by typosquatting, pointing out that the Domain Name redirects users to third-party websites that have no relationship to the Complainant or the...
2020-05-11 - Case Details
Further, the Complainant indicates that this is a case of typosquatting. The word ‘nex’ as incorporated in the disputed domain name has no meaning. In a...
2020-05-08 - Case Details
classic instance of typosquatting with the intention to confuse Internet users. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to display pornographic...
2022-09-01 - Case Details
trade mark, such conduct constitutes typosquatting (Humana, Inc. v. Unasi Inc. a/k/a Domaincar, WIPO Case No. D2006-0119). page 3 In this case the...
2022-08-31 - Case Details
Complainant’s trademark. This is an intentional instance of typosquatting. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Name...
2022-08-29 - Case Details
typosquatting uses intended to cause a confusing version of the Complainants’ actual word trademarks and domain names. The use of the disputed domain names by the...
2022-08-25 - Case Details
for its own loyalty/rewards programme. In the circumstances, it is likely that the Domain Name was registered as a typosquatting variant with intent to...
2022-08-24 - Case Details
typosquatting. (See section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)). Accordingly, the Panel...
2022-08-22 - Case Details
“i”. This is a classic example of typosquatting. The letter “I” is diagonal located next to the letter “i” on standard keyboard. Moreover, the capital...
2022-10-03 - Case Details
domain name, which is considered a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark (i.e., “typosquatting”). See the WIPO Overview page 3 of WIPO...
2022-09-26 - Case Details
entirety, with the addition of an extra “l” on the word “hotel.” This is an example of “typosquatting,” intended to lure Internet users seeking Complainant’s...
2022-09-13 - Case Details
Complainant and its business at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. The typosquatting nature of the disputed domain name further supports...
2022-12-19 - Case Details
name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark, often referred to as “typosquatting,” is confusingly similar to the...
2022-12-12 - Case Details
establish rights or legitimate interests) and perhaps has used the disputed domain name to send fraudulent email messages. Moreover, the mere typosquatting...
2022-12-09 - Case Details
“typosquatting” case, is evidence of the intention to confuse Internet users and capitalize on the fame of the Complainant’s trademark. It is therefore...
2023-02-06 - Case Details