The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark because it is a
clear case of typosquatting, with the domain name differing from the OASIS NETWORK used on the Website
by only one letter, which is likely intentionally misleading.
...It says the Respondent's site impersonates the Complainant's legitimate
business, targeting its use of OASIS NETWORK through typosquatting, and is designed to deceive users
into believing they are accessing a genuine OASIS service, potentially to gain confidential user information.
...
2024-04-04 - Case Details
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s prior
registered FERM LIVING mark in its entirety, albeit with just a minor typographical error variation (the
addition of a letter “s” at its end), practice commonly known as typosquatting and which has been deemed as
a strong indicative of bad faith under a number of UDRP cases.1 Respondent took advantage of the implied
affiliation of the disputed domain name that may be mistakenly seen by Internet users and used it to feature
the same and similar kind of products marketed by Complainant using Complainant’s trademark and/or
product names, thus diverting Internet traffic looking for Complainant in order to commercially benefit
therefrom. .../Gerardo Saavedra/
Gerardo Saavedra
Sole Panelist
Date: March 7, 2024
1 See Go Daddy Software, Inc. v. Daniel Hadani, WIPO Case No. D2002-0568: “Typosquatting is virtually per se registration and use in
bad faith”. See also Canva Pty Ltd v. Lucas Pinheiro and Jeivison Luiz Carvalho de Souza, WIPO Case No. ...
2024-03-13 - Case Details
The disputed domain name consists of its BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM trade mark in its
entirety with the addition of the letter “s” in the first portion of the trade mark. This is characteristic of a
typosquatting practice intended to create confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trade mark. Such a
slight spelling variation does not prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM trade mark.
2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...The Complainant’s trade mark BOEHRINGER-INGELHEIM is
recognizable in the disputed domain name and the Panel agrees that this is a clear case of typosquatting.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9.
Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy.
...
2024-03-26 - Case Details
The Complainant is the owner of the trademark FLEXLINK in many jurisdictions worldwide and
registered its trademark more than two decades before the registration of the disputed domain name. The
disputed domain name is a typosquatting of the Complainant’s mark. The mere registration of a domain
name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely known trademark by an unaffiliated entity
can, by itself, create a presumption of bad faith. ...The repetition of the letter “i” in the disputed domain name is certainly one of those
misspellings that fall squarely under the typosquatting category.
The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate
rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.
...
2024-03-22 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
That the disputed domain name bears a close visual and phonetic resemblance to the Complainant’s
trademarks, with a misspelling of the trademark CARREFOUR as “carefour”, and that said typosquatting
conduct does not dispel the risk of confusion.
page 3
That the inclusion of the term “brasil” in the disputed domain name does not diminish its overall similarity with
the Complainant’s trademarks.
...The disputed domain name comprises a misspelling of the Complainant’s trademarks, with the omission of
one “r”. This is a typical case of typosquatting. The Panel decides that the disputed domain name is
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark CARREFOUR. ...
2024-05-03 - Case Details
Requérant
Le Requérant estime que le nom de domaine litigieux est similaire à ses marques LESAFFRE au point de
prêter à confusion et que l’inversion des lettres dans le nom de domaine litigieux est un cas de
“typosquatting”.
Le Requérant allègue que le Défendeur ne détient aucun droit sur le nom de domaine litigieux ni aucun
intérêt légitime qui s’y attache. ...Enregistrement et usage de mauvaise foi
Compte tenu du caractère distinctif de la marque du Requérant ainsi que de la composition du nom de
domaine litigieux, qui intervertit deux lettres de ladite marque d’une manière typique du typosquatting, la
Commission administrative estime hautement probable que le Défendeur avait connaissance de cette
marque au moment où il a enregistré le nom de domaine litigieux. ...
2024-06-17 - Case Details
This substitution by a similar-appearing character is hardly noticeable as a clear example
of typosquatting. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes
of the Policy. ...This substitution by a similar-appearing character is hardly noticeable. The the
typosquatting nature of the disputed domain name therefore carries a risk of misleading the consumers and
diverts them to the Respondent’s website, in order to create a commercial gain which cannot amount to fair
use nor confer rights or legitimate interests upon the Respondent.
...
2024-06-12 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was
registered and used in bad faith as a typosquatting variant of the Complainant’s SOUFFLET mark in order to
take advantage of the Complainant’s reputation in its mark to drive traffic to the Respondent’s website.
...Given the (as yet unsupported) possibility that the disputed domain name was intended for typosquatting on
the Complainant’s mark, the Panel considers that should new material evidence come to light in future that is
reasonably unavailable to the Complainant at the time of the present proceeding demonstrating that the
disputed domain name is targeting or has targeted the Complainant, it may be possible for the Complainant
to refile the Complaint, subject to the usual considerations on refiling. ...
2024-07-26 - Case Details
There was
further evidence based on WhoIs search that the Respondent has engaged in a scheme of targeting
trademarks of many other famous brands through cybersquatting and typosquatting, and the Respondent
has already been involved in many domain name proceedings, which have all been decided against the
Respondent. ...The Respondent’s well-documented history, provided by the Complainant, of many incidences of
cybersquatting and typosquatting, and involvement in many domain name proceedings under which bad faith
was also found against the Respondent, demonstrate that the Respondent has a habit of registering domain
names in order to prevent owners of the names or marks from reflecting the names or marks in
corresponding domain names under Article 9(b) of the Policy.
...
2024-07-22 - Case Details
The addition of the extra
letters to the Complainant’s mark constitutes typosquatting. It is insufficient to distinguish the disputed
domain name from the Complainant’s trademark, and is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
ACCENTURE trademark. ...Accordingly, the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section
1.7. The typosquatting by the Respondent, with addition of an extra “r” as well as adding an “s” to the end of
the recognizable ACCENTURE mark, does not negate the confusing similarity to the Complainant’s mark.
...
2024-07-22 - Case Details
The
disputed domain name is obviously a misspelling of the Complainant’s distinctive and very well reputed
KRAFT HEINZ trade mark and of its domain name which was calculated to confuse
Internet users. This amounts to a straightforward case of typosquatting and the Panel agrees with the
Complainant that it is not possible to conceive of a plausible situation in which the Respondent would have
been unaware of the Complainant’s brands at the date of registration of the disputed domain name.
...https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 5
This case amounts a plain typosquatting of the Complainant’s well reputed registered trade marks and the
Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
7. ...
2024-06-28 - Case Details
The HEINZ and KRAFT
HEINZ marks are recognizable within the disputed domain name, which merely inverts the letters “e” and “i”
in an apparent instance of typosquatting. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar visually and
phonetically to the Complainant’s marks. ...The Panel notes in this case the distinctiveness and reputation of the
Complainant’s trademarks and the composition of the disputed domain name and f inds that in the
circumstances of this case the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a f inding of
bad faith under the Policy as an instance of opportunistic typosquatting.
The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
7. ...
2024-07-04 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s GALERIES LAFAYETTE trademarks as identif ied above (the “GALERIES LAFAYETTE
Mark”) as it consists of the GALERIES LAFAYETTE Mark in full, except that the disputed domain name has
an extra “l” in “galleries”, which constitutes an act of typosquatting.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name because the Respondent is neither af f iliated with the Complainant nor has been authorized by the
Complainant to use and register the GALERIES LAFAYETTE Mark, or to seek registration of any domain
name incorporating said trademark. ...Moreover, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name constitutes typosquatting making the sole
attraction of the disputed domain name its confusing similarity to the Complainant’s famous GALERIES
LAFAYETTE Mark.
...
2024-07-03 - Case Details
Accordingly to the Complainant, the Respondent has
indulged in typosquatting. The Complainant states that the Respondent has merely replaced the letter “U” in
the mark NUTELLA with the letter “O”, and has registered the disputed domain name.
...The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the Respondent’s conduct of registering the disputed domain
name which is a misspelling of the Complainant’s mark NUTELLA, constitutes as typosquatting.
The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate
rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.
...
2024-10-07 - Case Details
A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional
misspelling of a trademark (i.e. typosquatting) is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the
relevant mark for purposes of the first element. ...In the present case, the Panel notes that it is highly probable that the Respondent was aware of the
Complainant's trademarks at the time it registered the disputed domain name, given the distinctive nature of
such mark and its reputation, including in Brazil where the Respondent supposedly has an address, and
given the composition of the disputed domain name, which constitutes typosquatting. The gTLD “.shop”
reinforces the Panel’s conviction that the Respondent had the Complainant’s mark in mind when she
registered the disputed domain name. ...
2024-09-23 - Case Details
The Complainant also submits that, since the registration of the disputed domain name constitutes
typosquatting of the Complainant’s ORNUA mark, the Respondent not only knew about the Complainant’s
marks, but made a deliberate and opportunistic attempt to create a likelihood of confusion with the
Complainant’s trademark.
...https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0483.html
page 5
In the present case, the Panel finds that, in light of i) the prior registration and use of the trademark ORNUA
in connection with the products and services provided by the Complainant since 1961; ii) the promotion of
the Complainant’s business online at the website “www.ornua.com”; iii) the composition of the disputed
domain name, which appears to be a clear case of typosquatting of the Complainant’s ORNUA mark and its
domain name , the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to target the Complainant
and its trademark.
...
2024-10-15 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends as follows:
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BREAD FINANCIAL trademark in which the
Complainant has rights, because it incorporates this trademark in its entirety, and merely omitting the letters
“fi” is not sufficient to avoid confusing similarity but rather constitutes typosquatting.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...The disputed domain name was registered in bad faith because it is obvious that the Respondent had
knowledge of both the Complainant and its well known trademark BREAD FINANCIAL at the time it
page 3
registered the disputed domain name. In this case, the typosquatting indicates that the Respondent was not
only aware of the Complainant’s mark but also intended to confuse Internet users and/or email recipients to
the detriment of the Complainant.
...
2024-12-13 - Case Details
Such minor modifications to a trademark are commonly referred to as “typosquatting” and seek
to wrongfully take advantage of errors by a user in typing a domain name into a web browser.
...The addition of the letter ‘s’ does not distinguish the
Domain Name from the SILVERSEA trademark and is a common form of typosquatting”).
The “breiteling” and “breitlling” portions of the Disputed Domain Names are followed by the generic Top-
Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. ...
2023-07-21 - Case Details
Complainant is known to be the largest and most well-known FIP treatment resource
in the United States and indeed the world. Respondent is typosquatting on Complainant’s domain name and
is using its website to profit from sales of FIP medication.
...Respondent not only copied Complainant’s domain but also copied
Respondent’s Facebook Group, having launched a copycat FIP WARRIOR Facebook Group which was
taken down at Complainant’s request. Respondent is intentionally typosquatting on one of the most well-
known domains in the FIP treatment community to profit from consumer confusion to sell FIP medication to
users who mistakenly believe Respondent is affiliated with Complainant when it is not.
...
2023-07-25 - Case Details
The Complainant states that the Respondent is trying to obtain a benefit from common misspellings that could be made by Internet users who are looking for a particular site of a particular provider of goods or services (typosquatting).
That the Respondent’s typosquatting behavior is evidenced by the fact that said Repondent owns which merely replaces the “b” in with a similar-looking number “6” that could mislead a user in clicking through to the website.
...That besides the Complainant’s speculation of potential examples of typosquatting, the Respondent is not engaged in a pattern that consists in “registering the domain names in order to prevent the owner of the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name”.
...
2013-11-27 - Case Details