Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant alleges that it is a well-established principle that typosquatting constitutes prima facie evidence of confusion (DaimlerChrysler Corporation and DaimlerChrysler Services North America LLC v. Peter Carrington and Party Night Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0756; Citigroup, Inc v. Party Night Inc. and Peter Carrington,
WIPO Case No. ...The domain name differs from Complainant's registered BLACKBERRY marks only in that it has the extra letter “b” in , lacks the letter “a” in and has the extra letter “l” in , which is not enough to characterize them as distinct from Complainant's trademarks.
...
2009-05-13 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on January 30, 2009.
The Center appointed Alan L. Limbury as the sole panelist in this matter on February 9, 2009. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...D2000-0402; Estate of Stanley Getz aka Stan Getz v. Peter Vogel,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0773; Daniel C. Marino, Jr. v. Video Images Productions, et al.,
WIPO Case No. ...
2009-03-09 - Case Details
The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant's registered mark DIAMOND HILL, differing from that mark only by omission of one letter "L". The disputed domain name emulates the Complainant's domain name, , by including the hyphen between the word "diamond" and the misspelled word "hil". ...The use of a common or obvious misspelling of a complainant's mark is often found to be confusingly similar to the complainant's mark. Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0775.
Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
...
2015-09-23 - Case Details
Domain names that contain a common or obvious misspelling of a trademark are confusingly similar to the mark where the misspelled trademark remains the dominant or principal component of the domain name (see Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0775. This constitutes typo-squatting, which many UDRP panels have found such domain names to be confusingly similar to the trademark. ...It is evident that double key touch or skipping one letter "l" in addition to double key touch "ii" is a common typographical mistake.
For recognizing dominant or principal component of the Domain Names, the string showing gTLDs such as ".com" may be disregarded. ...
2016-01-06 - Case Details
The Respondent
has provided no details regarding this situation or explained the legal status of “Global Coffee”. Alternatively,
if L. F. is the owner of the disputed domain names, as claimed by L. F. in his Response, noting the above,
there is no evidence that L. ...EnQuip Technologies Group, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2007-1477; Maree Gaye Miller v. Peter Horner, WIPO
Case No. D2008-1492; Dominique Tillen v. Administrator Administrator, WIPO Case No. ...
2026-02-19 - Case Details
Tarbell Co. dba Tarbell, Realtors v. Mark W. Lichtenberger aka Mark L
Case No. D2007-0843
1. The Parties
The Complainant is F.M. Tarbell Co. dba Tarbell, Realtors, United States of America, represented by Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP, United States of America.
...- Since the Respondent’s name is Mark Lichtenberger (or Mark L.), he is not commonly known as any of the disputed domain names.
- One of the disputed domain names provides the Respondent with revenue through a pay-per-click search engine. ...
2007-08-28 - Case Details
The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainants' trademark with the omission of the letter ‘l'. The word ‘lorilard' has no independent meaning except as a misspelling of the Complainants' trademark.
...Johuathan Investments, Inc. and AOLLNEWS.COM,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0918; and Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0775.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is at least confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark rights.”
...
2009-07-22 - Case Details
Dans le cas présent, il s’agit de la substitution de la lettre « i » par la lettre « l ».
Le nom de domaine litigieux reprend ainsi la marque du Requérant avec une faute évidente : « BNPPARLBAS » au lieu de « BNP PARIBAS ».
...Stonybrook Investments, Ltd,
Litige OMPI No. D2001-0380; Wachovia Corporation c. Peter Carrington,
Litige OMPI No. D2002-0775). Voir également sur ce point Vente-privee.com, Vente-privee.com IP S.à.r.l. c. ...
2019-02-12 - Case Details
Therefore, the Respondent’s conduct cannot be considered as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the
disputed domain name (see Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington, WIPO Case No. D2002-0775 and
Edmunds.com, Inc. v. Digi Real Estate Foundation, WIPO Case No. ...Contact Privacy Inc.
Customer 0149511181 / Jerry Peter, WIPO Case No. D2018-1937; Gilead Sciences Ireland UC / Gilead
Sciences, Inc. v. Domain Maybe For Sale c/o Dynadot, WIPO Case No. ...
2022-08-25 - Case Details
This is not sufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity in the sense of the Policy. See Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0775; see also Bang & Olufsen a/s v. Unasi Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0728.
...This constitutes bad faith registration and use in the sense of the Policy. See Speedo Holdings B.V. v. Tyrone L Glenn-Bus,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0440; see also the cases cited above.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied its burden of proof for this element of the Policy.
7. ...
2016-07-26 - Case Details
Ademais, a incorporação quase total da expressão que compõe a marca BRAZINO777 da Reclamante,
provavelmente, desviaria usuários que buscam seus serviços, em caso de erros de digitação, a constituir
typosquatting, conforme precedentes sob este procedimento: Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. – Petrobras v. L. C. D.
S., Caso OMPI No. DBR2012-0003, assim como sob o procedimento da Política Uniforme de Resolução de
Disputas de Nomes de Domínios 1. Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington, WIPO Case No.
D2002-0775, inter alia; Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc. v. LaPorte Holdings, WIPO Case No. ...
2024-07-01 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 5, 2004.
The Center appointed Peter J. McGovern as the sole panelist in this matter on March 11, 2004. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...Decision
Accordingly, pursuant to paragraph 4(i) of the policy and Rule 15, the Panel orders that the domain names and be transferred to the Complainant.
Peter J. McGovern
Sole Panelist
Dated: March 19, 2004...
2004-03-25 - Case Details
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 25, 2021.
The Center appointed Ada L. Redondo Aguilera as the sole panelist in this matter on December 1, 2021. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. ...Decision
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 be transferred to the Complainant.
Ada L. Redondo Aguilera
Sole Panelist
Date: December 15 2021...
2021-12-29 - Case Details
The only difference between the opposed terms is the fourth letter which has been replaced in the disputed domain name by the letter “l” instead of the letter “t” in the trademark SEPTODONT. This single-letter difference does not avoid a confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark, in particular regarding its wording and pronunciation.
...According to the consensus view of UDRP case-law, a domain name which consists of a common, obvious or intentional misspelling of a trademark normally is found to be confusingly similar to such trademark, where the domain name contains sufficiently recognizable aspects of the relevant mark (see Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0775; Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc. v. LaPorte Holdings,
WIPO Case No. ...
2020-09-10 - Case Details
Complainant states that the only difference between the disputed domain name and the INSIGHT GLOBAL trademarks is the replacement of the first letter of the disputed domain name, “i”, with a lowercase “l”, which characters look nearly identical (known as homograph spoofing). Complainant contends that thus, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks.
...See Wolf Oil Corporation N.v. v. Peter Hugeman,
WIPO Case No. D2016-1398.
The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy in establishing its trademark rights and showing that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its INSIGHT GLOBAL mark.
...
2021-12-10 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent’s omission of the letter “l” in the disputed domain name
creates an initial interest confusion with the Complainant’s KYNDRYL name and trademarks vis-à-vis
Internet users.
...Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0149511181 / Jerry Peter, WIPO Case No. D2018-1937; Gilead
Sciences Ireland UC / Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Domain Maybe For Sale c/o Dynadot, WIPO Case No.
...
2024-10-09 - Case Details
For the purposes of the UDRP, companies within the same group are considered to have rights in each others’ marks (Grupo Televisa, S.A., Televisa, S.A. de C.V., Estrategia Televisa, S.A. de C.V., Videoserpel, Ltd. v. Party Night Inc., a/k/a Peter Carrington
WIPO Case No. D2003-0796).
The Complainant uses the domain name for its main website.
...In comparing the INTERVAL WORLD mark and the domain name on the one hand and the Disputed Domain Name on the other, the only difference to be found is that the letter “l” is missing. The high degree of similarity between these is likely to lead to confusion on the part of consumers. ...
2011-02-07 - Case Details
That the two terms are composed of three syllables, the two first ones being strictly identical (“ar”/”ar”, “gi”/”gi”) and the two last ones being quasi identical ( “l e t z”/ “l i t z”). That both terms have a very close pronunciation.
That the replacement of the vowel “e” by the vowel “i” is not sufficient to exclude confusing similarity as this modification is made in the last part of the denomination, which is the less perceptible part of a trademark for the consumers.
...The substitution of the letter “e” by the letter “i” is a purposeful misspelling mistake. (See Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0775; Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc. v. LaPorte Holdings,
WIPO Case No. ...
2011-11-15 - Case Details
The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the non-figurative elements of the BOLLORÉ ENERGY mark, while the disputed domain name incorporates an obvious misspelling of the non-figurative elements of that mark, omitting a letter “L”, a practice commonly known as “typosquatting”. The Panel does not consider this typographical difference capable of dispelling confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trademark. See Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0775. Both disputed domain names also include a hyphen separating the words “bollore” or “bolore” and “energy”, and an additional letter “s”. ...
2020-12-21 - Case Details