This kind of conduct is considered as an act of
“typosquatting” or registering a domain name that is a common misspelling of a mark in which a party has
rights and has often been recognized as evidence of bad faith registration per se. ...XC2, WIPO Case No. D2005-0444 (finding that the practice of “typosquatting”, by itself, is evidence of the
bad faith registration of a domain name). The Panel concurs with this approach.
...
2023-06-28 - Case Details
Indeed, the addition of the letter “s” in the disputed domain
name can be seen as a typing error and is likely to constitute intentional typosquatting. Furthermore,
the letter “s” will most probably not be pronounced, so that the disputes domain name and the
Complainant’s trademark LECLERC have identical sound. ...Also, the misspelling of a trademark is a practice commonly called “typosquatting”, a kind of
cybersquatting in which a respondent registers a domain name in order to take advantage of typing errors
eventually made by Internet users seeking a complainant’s website (see CPP, Inc. v. ...
2023-06-19 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that:
- the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark as it incorporates a minor
misspelling of the ARISTA Mark, specifically adding an extra letter “r” between the letters “i” and “s” in the
trademark, and then adding the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, which additions do not prevent a
finding of confusing similarity;
page 3
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because the
Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to register a domain name containing the ARISTA Mark,
the Respondent was not making a bona fide offering of goods or services, and the Respondent has never
been commonly known by the ARISTA Mark, or any similar name;
- the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because, among other things, the
Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name as part of an email phishing scheme, the Respondent uses
typosquatting in the Disputed Domain Name, and the Disputed Domain Name is being used to disrupt the
Complainant’s business.
...Such a minor modification to a disputed domain name is
commonly referred to as “typosquatting” and seeks to wrongfully take advantage of errors by a user in typing
a domain name into a web browser. ...
2024-02-14 - Case Details
Also, three of the disputed domain names contain exact-match domain names to the
Complainant’s SMARTMOCKUPS mark, and the other disputed domain name is a clear typo variation of the
Complainant’s mark. Typosquatting has been held in previous panel decisions to constitute clear evidence
of bad faith. Under such circumstances, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain names’
registration was clearly in connection with the SMARTMOCKUPS mark that it was undoubtedly made in bad
faith.
...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). ...
2024-02-02 - Case Details
Also, three of the disputed domain names contain exact-match domain names to the
Complainant’s SMARTMOCKUPS mark, and the other disputed domain name is a clear typo variation of the
Complainant’s mark. Typosquatting has been held in previous panel decisions to constitute clear evidence
of bad faith. Under such circumstances, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain names’
registration was clearly in connection with the SMARTMOCKUPS mark that it was undoubtedly made in bad
faith.
...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). ...
2024-02-01 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainants contend that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to their trademark
TAYLOR WIMPEY and that the repetition of the letter “i” constitutes typosquatting.
The Complainants further contend that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name for the following reasons: (i) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain
name; (ii) the Respondent has no trademark applications or registrations for “taylorwiimpey”; (iii) the
Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or
services, nor is the Respondent making any legitimate noncommercial use of the disputed domain name.
...Furthermore, the Panel considers that the repetition of the letter “i” of the trademark is a typical case of a
deliberate misspelling of a mark (so-called “typosquatting”) (see for instance Humana Inc. v. Cayman
Trademark Trust, WIPO Case No. D2006-0073, concerning the domain name and
Edmunds.com, Inc. v. ...
2024-03-13 - Case Details
Notably, Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
AKERMAN trademark and that Respondent is engaging in typosquatting. Complainant also asserts that
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as the disputed domain name
was registered more than a decade after Complainant’s registration and first use of the
domain name and more than a decade after Complainant first registered the AKERMAN trademark.
...case=D2021-1120
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 5
Respondent’s typosquatting signals an intention to confuse users seeking or expecting to do business with
Complainant. ...
2024-04-17 - Case Details
The Complainant
contends that:
- The Disputed Domain Name is formed by a typographical misspelling of the ACCENTURE trademark,
which simply swaps the letters “e” and “n” in the ACCENTURE trademark. This constitutes “typosquatting”
and is generally insufficient to materially distinguish it from the ACCENTURE trademark; and
- Internet users are very likely to be confused as to whether an association exists between the Disputed
Domain Name and the Complainant.
...The Complainant
contends that:
- The Complainant has acquired worldwide reputation of the ACCENTURE trademarks;
- The ACCENTURE trademark is a coined term with no obvious dictionary meaning;
- The Respondent had constructive notice of the ACCENTURE trademarks when it chose the Disputed
Domain Name;
- The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name that simply swaps the letters “e” and “n” in the
Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark, which constitutes typosquatting and this is evidence of bad faith;
and
- The Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name to redirect Internet users to commercial
websites through various sponsored click-through links constitutes bad faith and indicates that the
Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name with the intent to attract Internet users to its
website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s ACCENTURE
trademarks.
...
2024-04-12 - Case Details
The Complainant
contends that:
- The Disputed Domain Name is formed by a typographical misspelling of the ACCENTURE trademark,
which simply swaps the letters “e” and “n” in the ACCENTURE trademark. This constitutes “typosquatting”
and is generally insufficient to materially distinguish it from the ACCENTURE trademark; and
- Internet users are very likely to be confused as to whether an association exists between the Disputed
Domain Name and the Complainant.
...The Complainant
contends that:
- The Complainant has acquired worldwide reputation of the ACCENTURE trademarks;
- The ACCENTURE trademark is a coined term with no obvious dictionary meaning;
- The Respondent had constructive notice of the ACCENTURE trademarks when it chose the Disputed
Domain Name;
- The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name that simply swaps the letters “e” and “n” in the
Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark, which constitutes typosquatting and this is evidence of bad faith;
and
- The Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name to redirect Internet users to commercial
websites through various sponsored click-through links constitutes bad faith and indicates that the
Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name with the intent to attract Internet users to its
website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s ACCENTURE
trademarks.
...
2024-04-12 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that:
- the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark as it incorporates a
misspelling of the WOLFSPEED Mark, specifically switching the letters “l” and “f” in the trademark, and then
adding the gTLD “.com”, which misspelling does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity;
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because the
Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to register a domain name containing the WOLFSPEED
Mark, the Respondent was not making a bona fide offering of goods or services, and the Respondent has
never been commonly known by the WOLFSPEED Mark, or any similar name; and
page 3
- the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because, among other things, the
Respondent uses typosquatting in the Disputed Domain Name, and the overall circumstances of the case
support a finding of bad faith use under the passive holding doctrine.
...Such a minor modification to a disputed domain name is commonly
referred to as “typosquatting” and seeks to wrongfully take advantage of errors by a user in typing a domain
name into a web browser. ...
2024-05-20 - Case Details
página 3
- El nombre de dominio en disputa reproduce las marcas de la Demandante L’Óreal pero con un error
ortográfico evidente, cual es la adición de una “s”, por lo que debe ser considerado similar hasta el punto de
causar confusión con aquéllas, constituyendo un claro ejemplo de “typosquatting”, conducta que se viene
calificando como un uso de mala fe.
- El Demandado no es comúnmente conocido en el mercado bajo la denominación “aesop” y no ha sido
autorizado, ni directa ni indirectamente, por las Demandantes, para su uso...D2025-0310); y (ii) en segundo lugar, la
comparación entre el nombre de dominio en disputa y los signos distintivos de la Demandante L’Óreal llevan
a la conclusión de que el Demandado ha incurrido en un supuesto obvio de “typosquatting”, por cuanto el
elemento denominativo único que compone el nombre de dominio en disputa coincide con el elemento
distintivo principal de los signos de la Demandante L’Óreal con la única e irrelevante diferencia de haber
añadido una consonante final, la “s”, diferencia que no evita la similitud hasta el punto de causar confusión
con la marca AESOP. ...
2026-02-16 - Case Details
The Complainants contend that by merely removing the letter “s” from “‘jindalstainless”, the
Respondent has registered the disputed domain name to trade on the Complainants’ mark by
exploiting likely mistakes by unsuspecting users when entering the URL address associated with the
Complainants, hence citing a clear example of typosquatting.
- The Complainants also contend that the trademark JINDAL STAINLESS has acquired fame and is
exclusively associated with the Complainants’ goods and services. ...Such an act of the
Respondent is bound to deceive or confuse the Internet users.
- The Complainants contend that typosquatting is strong evidence of bad faith in registration and use of
a domain name. Reliance has been placed on the UDRP panel’s decision in The Sportsman’s Guide
Inc. ...
2022-08-29 - Case Details
This substitution is insignificant from a
phonetic and typographical point of view and represents an example of typosquatting. It does not change
the overall impression produced by the disputed domain name and is insufficient to avoid confusion with the
Complainants’ trademark.
...In the present case, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ DUPIXENT
trademark and represents a typosquatting version of it. Moreover, the disputed domain name is being used
for a website offering pornographic content and featuring links to other pornographic websites.
...
2022-07-26 - Case Details
The Panel has carefully considered all elements of this case, and considers the following elements
particularly relevant: the Complainant’s request that the language of the proceeding be English; the lack of
comments on the language of the proceeding and the lack of response on the merits of this proceeding by
the Respondent (the Panel notes that the Respondent was invited in a timely manner by the Center to
present his comments and response in either English or Chinese, but chose not to do so); the fact that the
websites hosted at the disputed domain names contain links only in English and that the disputed domain
names comprise English words and are written in Latin letters and not in Chinese characters; the fact that
the Respondent was involved in a large amount of previous UDRP proceedings conducted in English and
has demonstrated a pattern of typosquatting of distinctive English-language trademarks; and, finally, the fact
that Chinese as the language of this proceeding could lead to unwarranted delays and additional costs for
the Complainant. ...Furthermore, the Panel also considers that the Respondent
clearly and consciously targeted the Complainant’s prior registered trademarks for CLR by registering the
disputed domain names, which are all intended to take unfair advantage of Internet users mistyping the
Complainant’s official domain name (also called “typosquatting”). The Panel deducts from
these efforts to consciously target the Complainant’s marks and typosquat the Complainant’s own domain
name that the Respondent knew, or at least should have known, of the existence of the Complainant’s
trademarks at the time of registering the disputed domain names. ...
2022-11-16 - Case Details
The Panel concludes that such addition of letters constitutes an intentional and obvious
misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark (this practice is also called “typosquatting”), which moreover
preserves the conceptual, aural and visual similarity with the Complainant’s OOFOS trademarks. ...The Panel has reviewed all elements of this case, and attributes
particular relevance to the following elements: the fact that the disputed domain name is an attempt of
typosquatting, whereby the Complainant’s trademark for OOFOS remains clearly recognizable in the
disputed domain name, the high degree of distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark and the
unlikelihood of any good-faith use to which the disputed domain name might be put by the Respondent. ...
2022-07-05 - Case Details
Registering domain names with a difference of one letter to a famous brand name often exemplifies
typosquatting. Since the difference between the SLD of the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s
CARREFOUR trademark is in the substitution of the letter “o” with the letter “p”, and regarding the fact that
those letters are adjacent to each other in an ordinary QWERTY keyboard, the Panel considers this
difference to be typosquatting. ...
2022-06-10 - Case Details
Such a minor modification to a trademark is commonly referred to as “typosquatting” and seeks 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.”).
Further, the addition of a gTLD such as “.com” in a domain name is technically required. ...
2022-06-24 - Case Details
However, in the case at hand, Respondent’s bad faith may be deduced from
the following facts: (i) the disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s CRATE AND BARREL mark
coupled with just minor typographical variations (which, in the case at hand, might be deemed as the
practice of “typosquatting” and which has been deemed as a strong indicative of bad faith under a number of
UDRP cases);6 (ii) Respondent is using Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name without
Complainant’s authorization; (iii) the risk of implied affiliation of the disputed domain name with
Complainant’s marks; (iv) the contents of the website linked to the disputed domain name showing apparent
sponsored PPC links of products competing with Complainant’s;7 (v) Respondent’s use of a privacy service
to hide its name and contact details; and (vi) Respondent’s failure to appear at this proceeding, which is
indicative that Respondent lacks arguments and evidence to support its holding of the disputed domain
name.
...Steven Newman a/k/a Jil l Wasserstein a/k/a Pluto Newman, WIPO Case No. D2006-0517: “the practice of
typosquatting, in and of itself, constitutes bad faith registration”.
7 The fact that the website l inked to the disputed domain name might be a generic parking page created by a third party does not
relieve Respondent from its responsibility for contents appearing on said website. ...
2022-04-21 - Case Details
That the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark ABIDE FINANCIAL, and that the Respondent has engaged in typosquatting.
That the only differences between the disputed domain name and the ABIDE FINANCIAL trademark are that the disputed domain name switches an “A” for an “E” in the term “financiel”, and that the terms “abide” and “financiel” are separated by a hyphen, which does not change the fact that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
...The incorporation of such misspelling into the disputed domain name, plus the addition of a hyphen makes this a typical case of typosquatting (see section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0; see also Schneider Electric S.A. v. Domain Whois Protect Service / Cyber Domain Services Pvt. ...
2021-06-17 - Case Details
Such a modification to a trademark is commonly referred to as “typosquatting” and seeks to wrongfully take advantage of errors by a user in typing a domain name into a web browser. ...D2005-0444 (“It is well-settled that the practice of typosquatting, of itself, is evidence of the bad faith registration of a domain name.”).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant.
7. ...
2021-04-19 - Case Details