These circumstances are present in the case at issue, along with the fact that the disputed
domain name is a typosquatting of the Complainant’s mark, which is also an indication of bad faith.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. ...The Complainant’s mark is highly distinctive and uniquely associated to the
Complainant. The disputed domain name is a typosquatting of the Complainant’s trademark SODEXO. The
Respondent failed to submit a Response and to provide evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use of
the disputed domain name. ...
2022-07-13 - 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 deliberate misspelling of the Complainant’s CHEMOURS trade mark (i.e. the omission of the letter “s” in
the disputed domain name) is a blatant example of typosquatting.
2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...the disputed domain name consists of a nearly identical, confusingly similar version of the
Complainant’s well known CHEMOURS trade mark;
b. the disputed domain name is a clear typosquat of the Complainant’s domain
name;
c. the Respondent concealed his true identity;
d. the Respondent is attempting to trade off the Complainant’s goodwill established in the CHEMOURS
trade mark; and
e. the Respondent has a clear pattern and practice of typosquatting on domain names that incorporate
confusingly similar versions of third-party trade marks. (Reference was made by the Complainant to
Caesars License Company, LLC v. ...
2022-09-07 - Case Details
The disputed domain name contains
the mark in its entirety, simply transposing the letters “v” and “i” in the middle and adding the generic Top-
Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. Such a practice is equivalent to typosquatting and does not decrease the
confusing similarity between the mark and disputed domain name. The extension “.com” present in the
disputed domain name is not to be taken into consideration when examining the identity or confusing
similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name...Such misspelling of the Complainant’s 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. ...
2022-09-07 - Case Details
The disputed domain name replicates the
distinctive ANN SUMMERS trademark, replacing the first “m” with the letter “n”, which constitutes an
example of “typosquatting”.
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...Zheng Jianmeng, WIPO Case No. D2019-0234).
Moreover, as to “typosquatting”, section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP
Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) states: “A domain name which consists of a common,
obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the
relevant mark for purposes of the first element.”
...
2022-09-06 - 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
The Respondent should be considered as possessing actual notice and knowledge of the Complainant's AVIVA mark, and thus having registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, since the Complainant's AVIVA mark is well known and the circumstances support such a finding.
Typosquatting is also evidence of bad faith registration and use. The disputed domain name is a mis-spelling of the Complainant's domain name. ...This demonstrates that the Respondent is engaging in a pattern of cybersquatting/typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent did not respond to the Complainant's cease and desist letters, which were sent three times in January 2017.
6. ...
2017-06-12 - Case Details
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name <118bet.com> is just an alteration of the Complainant’s trademark 188BET by one number and that it is strongly indicative of typosquatting. The Complainant further claims that the use of typosquatting by the Respondent is an attempt to divert Internet users who are trying to reach the Complainant’s website to its website, and that the alteration of the one number does nothing to minimize the risk of confusion to potential customers looking for the Complainant’s website.
2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...
2017-04-06 - Case Details
To the contrary, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is phonetically and visually similar to the ARLA mark, and is typical of a typosquatting domain name. The Complainant submits that the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.com” should be disregarded when considering the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name under the first element of the Policy.
...The insertion of an “r” in the disputed domain name between “arla” and “foods” does not dispel the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s marks, and is strongly evocative of typosquatting.
Accordingly, the Panel finds the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2016-12-27 - Case Details
The Complainant also notes that as a result of the identical "odafone" element, there is a significant degree of visual and phonetic similarity such that appearance of the disputed domain name is similar and that it is a classic instance of "typosquatting". The Complainant concludes that disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the VODAFONE trademarks.
...There is a significant degree of visual and phonetic similarity such that appearance of the domain name is confusingly similar and that it is a classic instance of "typosquatting". In the Panel's assessment, there is no doubt, that the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademarks VODAFONE in with a typographical error and that the addition of the Top-Level Domain gTLD ".net" does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the trademark of the Complainant (Lilly ICOS LLC v. ...
2016-06-21 - Case Details
The provisions of paragraph 4(b) of the Policy are without limitation and bad faith may be found otherwise by the Panel.
The scheme known as Internet typosquatting or typopiracy is well recognised. That is the registration of a domain name that mimics a legitimate domain name or trademark except for a devious error, in the expectation that a percentage of users will make the same error by either using the wrong spelling or by hitting the wrong key and will, in consequence, be led to the Internet presence of the scheming party. ...Having regard to all the evidence, the Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with the intention of typosquatting on the Complainant's trademarks, in the expectation that some users seeking the Complainant will accidentally hit the "e" key instead of "r" and be misled into visiting the Respondent's website, potentially generating commercial gain for the Respondent by confusion of the visitor within the contemplation of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
...
2016-06-20 - Case Details
The Disputed Domain Name includes the Complainant’s trademark, trade name and domain name registrations for and registered prior to the Disputed Domain Name, with the omission of the letter “r”.
This, it contends, is therefore a case of typosquatting consisting of bad faith domain name registration and use due a difference in the spelling of the original trademark.
...The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name includes the Complainant’s trademark, trade name and domain name registrations for and registered prior to the Disputed Domain Name, with the omission of the letter “r”. This is therefore a case of typosquatting in the light of the difference in the spelling of the Disputed Domain Name compared to the Complainant’s trademarks.
...
2016-05-12 - Case Details
The disputed domain names, , and , are, in the Panel's view, clearly confusingly similar to both the LATEROOMS and LATERROOMS.COM marks, as they contain the same set of letters with minor, but deliberate, misspellings of either "late" or "rooms". The Panel finds this to be a classic typosquatting scenario, wherein an Internet user, seeking the website of a well-known trademark or service mark holder, may be led to an unwanted website because the user inadvertently typed two letters out of sequence. ...Domain.Contact,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0994 (March 3, 2004) ("'Typosquatting' is a practice in which a respondent registers domain names with slight misspellings of a complainant's mark to divert Internet traffic. ...
2016-07-11 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name fully incorporates the INTERSYSTEMS mark inverting only the “e” and “r”, and the mere inversion of letters in a domain name that contains sufficiently recognizable aspects of the relevant mark is a classic example of typosquatting that is insufficient to obviate confusing similarity. The Complainant argues that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered INTERSYSTEMS mark and is intended to intercept and confuse consumers when looking for bona fide and well-known Intersystems technical solutions and services or authorized partners.
...The Complainant calls this type of misspelling of its INTERSYSTEMS mark “typosquatting”. This minor difference in spelling can lead to confusion and does not serve to avoid a finding of confusing similarity with the Complainant’s INTERSYSTEMS service and trademark.
...
2018-06-21 - Case Details
The Complainant’s ARCHIVE OF OUR OWN mark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name.2 The addition of the letter “o” following “archiveofourown” in the disputed domain name does not serve to dispel the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s mark, and is evocative of typosquatting. TLDs generally are disregarded in determining identity or confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.3
Accordingly, the Panel finds the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...In light of the attendant circumstances, the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name (including typosquatting) smacks of opportunistic bad faith.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
7. ...
2018-04-09 - Case Details
More specifically, the disputed domain names have misspelled the Complainant trademarks as follows:
The disputed domain name – the “l” was dropped;
The disputed domain name – the first “o” was dropped.
This conduct, commonly referred to as “typosquatting”, creates a virtually identical and/or confusingly similar mark to the Complainant’s trademark under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...By registering multiple domain names that contain the Complainant’s MARLBORO trademark in its entirety, with an addition of other generic terms and by misspelling trademark, the Respondent created domain names that are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, as well as its domain name. Typosquatting itself represents an evidence of bad faith registration that was found by past UDRP panels. See WIPO Overview 3.0 at 3.1.4: “Panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.”
...
2018-08-08 - Case Details
The Complainant further argues that Internet users could easily mistype “stevemadden.com” as “stevenmadden.com”, which the Complainant argues is an attempt at “typosquatting”. The Complainant submits that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is not a distinguishing factor.
...Whether this was an attempt to capture Internet traffic seeking the Complainant by typosquatting (the letters “n” and “m” being adjacent on a standard QWERTY keyboard), or by registering a domain name reflecting the Complainant’s mark and also the name of the Complainant’s founder is not clear. ...
2019-01-03 - Case Details
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark STAR STABLE, because it incorporates said trademark in its entirety, with only a slight change, i.e.,the substitution of a letter “a” for a letter “e”. This is a case of typosquatting (see section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)). ...The Complainant’s game Start Stable is well-known. The Respondent has engaged in typosquatting. The disputed domain name resolves to a Web page that displays links that redirect users to other gaming sites, including a site which features a game that mimics that of the Complainant. ...
2019-05-01 - Case Details
It is a deliberate misspelling confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, which constitutes an obvious typosquatting case. Visually the disputed domain name is so close to the Complainant’s trademark that confusion is inevitable between them.
...In addition, the Panel notes that the nature of the disputed domain name (incorporating the Complainant’s mark differing only in one letter) is a misspelling that could easily cause confusion, which may constitute a deliberate typosquatting case. This Panel considers highly probable it was registered or acquired by the Respondent and was used with the intention of creating a likelihood of confusion as to the affiliation or association with the Complainant and its trademark, misleadingly attracting Internet users to the Respondent’s website, and disrupting the Complainant’s business.
...
2019-01-14 - Case Details
Thus, the Panel finds that this is a typical typosquatting case, since the Disputed Domain Names reproduce the Complainant's trademark in its entirety but with a minor alteration of the letters which does not change the overall impression that the Disputed Domain Names are the same to the Complainant´s trademark.
...Furthermore, it is important to highlight that the present case is a "typosquatting" case being this, a strong evidence of the Respondent's bad faith. The WIPO Overview 3.0 states:
"A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element.
(…) Examples of such typos include (i) adjacent keyboard letters, (ii) substitution of similar-appearing characters (e.g., upper vs lower-case letters or numbers used to look like letters), (iii) the use of different letters that appear similar in different fonts, (iv) the use of non-Latin internationalized or accented characters, (v) the inversion of letters and numbers, or (vi) the addition or interspersion of other terms or numbers".
...
2018-10-12 - Case Details