Claramente podemos afirmar que nos encontramos ante un caso de error tipográfico deliberado o typosquatting, pues ciertamente es muy factible que al intentar teclear el nombre de dominio de la Demandante cualquier internauta pueda erróneamente teclear los nombres de dominio en disputa.
...It is well settled under the Policy that the practice of typosquatting, in and of itself, constitutes bad faith registration, see, e.g., ESPN, Inc. v. XC2,
WIPO Case No. ...
2012-01-13 - Case Details
The foregoing circumstances are strongly evocative of the practice commonly referred to as “typosquatting” – the intentional registration and use of a domain name that is a common misspelling of a distinctive mark. In a typical “typosquatting” case, the respondent has registered and is using the domain name in order to take advantage of typographical errors made by Internet users seeking the complainant's commercial website and divert them to the respondent's website. ...
2010-06-11 - Case Details
Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name constitutes a classic case of typosquatting. The overwhelming likelihood is that Respondent registered the Domain Name to mislead consumers as to an affiliation with or connection to Complainant, for commercial gain. ...Otherwise, the Domain Name is virtually identical to the Mark. Because Respondent has committed typosquatting, the Domain Name is, by definition, confusingly similar to the BUCCELLATI Mark. Edmunds.com, Inc v. ...
2020-09-01 - Case Details
Milen Radumilo, WIPO Case No. D2019-1600: “Typosquatting itself is evidence
of relevant bad faith registration and use.” See also Go Daddy Software, Inc. v. Daniel Hadani, WIPO Case No. D2002-0568:
“Typosquatting is virtually per se registration and use in bad faith.”
3 See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. ...
2025-12-10 - Case Details
As regards the use, the Respondent has engaged in ‘typosquatting’,
targeting the Complainant in hopes of catching Internet users that misspell the Complainant’s main platform
at . ...This misspelling in the disputed domain name also referred to as typosquatting, does not
prevent a finding of confusing similarity (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9).
...
2022-08-17 - Case Details
As previously found in similar cases, this Panel holds that the Respondent ought to have had knowledge of
the Complainant’s well-known trademark ARCELORMITTAL prior to the registration of the disputed domain
name, as it is a clear typosquatting version of this trademark, which is a clear indication of bad faith.
See The Gap, Inc. v. ...Triple E Holdings Limited, WIPO Case No. D2005-0711
directly on typosquatting.
The Complainant has relied upon Studiocanal v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, WIPO Case
No. ...
2023-03-01 - Case Details
Further, the Panel finds that the Respondent when registering the disputed domain name, has targeted the
Complainant’s well-known trademark and its domain name is a typical act of typosquatting. Paragraph 4(b)
of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of bad faith cases and use of a domain name. The fact that the
Respondent registers a domain name which consist of the misspelled letters of the Complainant’s domain
name considered within the scope of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Earlier panels have found
typosquatting itself evidence of bad faith” (National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues, Inc., d/b/a
Minor League Baseball v. ...
2023-02-08 - Case Details
Como se mencionó líneas atrás, el nombre de dominio en disputa es un ejemplo típico de la práctica desleal
conocida como “typosquatting” y dicha circunstancia refuerza la consideración de que el Titular carece de
derechos e intereses legítimos sobre el nombre de dominio en disputa.
...En este caso, en vista de la notoriedad de las marcas NOVARTIS, la composición del
nombre de dominio en disputa, la ausencia de contestación formal y consecuente falta de argumentación en
contra de los señalamientos de la Promovente, así como la existencia del “typosquatting”, denotan mala fe
en el uso del nombre de dominio en disputa. Para mejor referencia, ver Equinor ASA v. ...
2023-08-09 - Case Details
Moreover, this Panel emphasizes that the case at hand is a typical case of “typosquatting”, which occurs
when a domain name consists of a misspelling of the complainant’s trademark. ...Furthermore, the composition of the disputed domain name, being a typical case of typosquatting, signals an
intention on the part of the Respondent to confuse Internet users seeking or expecting the Complainant.
...
2024-01-04 - Case Details
Previous panels constituted under the Policy have held that typosquatting typically satisfies the "confusingly similar" requirement (see, e.g., RX America, LLC v. Tony Rodolakis,
WIPO Case No. ...D2016-1926 (November 7, 2016). The Domain Name is a clear example of typosquatting because, as discussed above, it uses the Complainant's Registered Marks, with the minor addition of an extra "t." ...
2017-07-14 - Case Details
Dessa tvister belyser hur Innehavaren åtminstone sedan 2013 har ägnat sig åt denna illvilliga form av typosquatting. Det anförda ger tydliga indikationer om att Innehavaren inte bedriver någon seriös verksamhet. ...Den typen av typosquatting som aktualiseras härvidlag är när användaren av misstag råkar missa att trycka på en tangent. ...
2018-06-21 - Case Details
The Disputed Domain Name contains the Trade Mark in its entirety with the addition of the letter “l” after the word “bank”. This is a typical example of typosquatting, a deliberate misspelling of a trade mark registered as a domain name, which is intended to confuse Internet users.
...Previous UDRP panels have also found that if a respondent has engaged in typosquatting, that may be sufficient to establish registration and use in bad faith (Barnes & Noble College Bookstores, Inc. v. ...
2018-10-31 - Case Details
The disputed domain name is exclusively formed with the Complainant’s INGENICO mark, plus an additional “i”, which falls within a prototypical example of typosquatting.
The “.com” extension in the disputed domain name is viewed as standard registration suffix and as such is disregarded under the first element.
...First off, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s typosquatting in and of itself constitutes bad faith registration of the disputed domain name for the purpose of Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii).
...
2019-07-18 - Case Details
Many UDRP panels have held that typosquatting in and of itself establishes bad faith registration and use in the context of the Policy (see National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues, Inc., d/b/a Minor League Baseball v. ...Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith”).
There are no facts set out in the available record which could conceivably justify the registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent. ...
2015-10-27 - Case Details
Typosquatting is inherently parasitic
and of itself evidence of bad faith”: National Association of Professionall
Baseball Leagues, Inc., d-b-a Minor League Baseball v. ...The Panel finds that Respondent was so aware.
Not only is typosquatting of itself evidence of bad
faith (National Association of Professionall Baseball Leagues v. Zuccarini,
WIPO Case No. ...
2006-08-28 - Case Details
It states that in approximately forty reported cases, panels have determined that the Respondent has engaged repeatedly in typosquatting or cybersquatting and that the Respondent’s registrations were done in bad faith. The Complainant submits that typosquatting is itself evidence of bad faith.
...John Zuccarini,
WIPO Case No. D2002-1011: “Typosquatting….is the intentional misspelling of words with intent to intercept and siphon off traffic from its intended destination, by preying on Internauts who make common typing errors. ...
2007-06-19 - Case Details
There are a number of Panel decisions that have found confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) based on evidence of typosquatting. See Wachovia Corporation v. American Consumers First,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0150; Red Bull GmbH v. ...The Panel finds that the Respondent has engaged in the abusive practice of typosquatting, deliberately seeking to divert internet users to its website in order to trade on the goodwill developed in the Complainant’s widely known GATEWAY mark. ...
2008-06-09 - Case Details
Therefore, the Panel also takes into account previous UDRP decisions relating to the practice of “typosquatting” where such practice has consistently been regarded as creating domain names confusingly similar to the relevant mark. ...The Panel has previously indicated, for the purpose of determining the existence of confusing similarity, that an Internet user, when attempting to visit the Complainant’s website, could easily be diverted to a different website as a result of the “typosquatting” practice conducted by the Respondent.
The act of “typosquatting” or registering a domain name that is a common misspelling of a mark in which a party has rights has often been recognized as evidence of bad faith registration and use. ...
2008-04-02 - Case Details
In view of, Complainant’s registration for the EYEFINITY trademark, Respondent’s incorporation of that trademark into the disputed domain name, and Respondent’s clear attempt at typosquatting on the EYEFINITY trademark, the Panel concludes that Complainant has established the first element of the Policy.
...XC2,
WIPO Case No. D2005-0444 (finding that the practice of “typosquatting”, of itself, is evidence of the bad faith registration of a domain name). The Panel concurs with this approach. ...
2021-12-17 - Case Details
The
evidence in the file shows that there is no active website linked to the disputed domain name. 2F
3 Nonetheless,
the typosquatting nature of the disputed domain name, which almost identically reflects Complainant’s name
and mark, cannot confer rights or legitimate interests upon Respondent.
...Steven Newman a/k/a Jill Wasserstein a/k/a Pluto Newman, WIPO Case No. D2006-0517: “the practice of
typosquatting, in and of itself, constitutes bad faith registration”. See also Go Daddy Software, Inc. v. ...
2023-09-26 - Case Details