About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

Full Text Search on WIPO Panel Decisions

Found 4709   document(s)s (0.027 sec)

Rows

<<  <  2061 - 2080  >  >>

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2008-0623 for mundor.com html (19 KB)

Ello puede considerarse como una actividad de typosquatting por parte del Demandado, de quien ya se declaró que había incurrido en una conducta de esas características en el Telstra Corporation Limited v. ...El nombre de dominio ha sido registrado y usado con mala fe por parte del Demandado, pues el dominio se limita a copiar un nombre de dominio y marca ajena preexistente con la mínima diferencia de un guión, incurriendo en la técnica conocida como typosquatting, con el fin de beneficiarse así de los errores tipográficos que puedan cometer los usuarios de Internet que buscan el nombre de dominio de la parte actora. ...

2008-06-16 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2009-0600 for freetoefltest.com, gremagic.com, grewiki.com, grewiki.net, teofl.net, toeflcamp.com, toeflexam.com, toeflmagic.com, tofel.net, tofle.net html (20 KB)

The addition of these terms does not avoid confusion. The other domain names constitute typosquatting – whereby Respondent has deliberately introduced minor deviations into Complainant's marks that result in domain names that are visually and phonetically similar to Complainant's marks...This is particularly true where the domain names are used for pay-per-click websites that depend upon the notoriety of Complainant's marks to attract traffic to the websites. Respondent's typosquatting evidences the bad faith registration of five of the domain names. Further, because the links on Respondent's websites include links to third parties who provide goods and services related to Complainant's TOEFL test and GRE tests, consumers are likely to be confused into believing that Respondent and the parties listed on the websites are affiliated with or endorsed by Complainant or that Complainant has authorized Respondent's use of the domain names. ...

2009-07-10 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2009-1782 for merkc.com html (19 KB)

With regard to use and registration in bad faith, the Complainant argues that this is a classic case of typosquatting, which is inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith. The Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name is disrupting and diverting the Complainant's business and such registration and use constitutes bad faith. ...The fact that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name as well as other domain names, which appear to be close misspellings of famous brands, indicates the Respondent's engagement in a pattern of conduct in registering domain names comprising famous brands. This and the typosquatting itself in this Panel's view both constitute bad faith. In light of the above reasons, the Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith pursuant to the Policy. 7. ...

2010-03-05 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2010-0124 for mojofti.com html (18 KB)

The content of the Respondent's website is clearly very similar in nature to the content of the Complainant's website, and the Respondent's choice of the Domain Name has the obvious appearance of an attempt at “typosquatting”. The Complainant's mark consists of a made-up word, and it is difficult (at least in the absence of any compelling explanation from the Respondent) to avoid the conclusion that the Respondent has deliberately taken advantage of the similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's mark, in order to confuse Internet users looking for the Complainant's website and divert them to the revenue-generating sponsored links available at the Respondent's website. ...Although the Respondent appears to be based in a different country to the Complainant, the near-identity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's mark, and the similarity of subject matter on the parties' respective websites, makes it clear that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its online activities when he registered the Domain Name. The case appears to be a simple one of “typosquatting”, where the Respondent has registered the Domain Name (which is virtually identical to the Complainant's mark) with a view to attracting to the Respondent's website Internet users who have been looking for the Complainant's website and mistakenly typed in the Complainant's mark without the first of the two “i”s. ...

2010-03-24 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision DES2010-0014 for www-ono.es html (17 KB)

La Demandante sostiene el registro y uso de mala fe del Nombre de Dominio en disputa alegando que éste se registró en un acto de typosquatting con fines especulativos, y de otra parte sostiene que la condición de “Ono” como marca notoria acredita per se la mala fe de la Demandada en el registro del Nombre de Dominio en disputa. ...Resulta frecuente que los internautas al teclear el nombre de dominio de la Demandante, éstos omitan el punto después de “www” y añadiendo a su vez por error el guión, dando lugar así a la maniobra conocida como typosquatting, que efectivamente da pie a la apreciación de la concurrencia de la mala fe en el registro del Nombre de Dominio en disputa (ver Vacaciones Edreams, S.L. v. ...

2010-05-18 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2011-0160 for senior6sncf.com html (18 KB)

Fourthly, the Respondent has failed to deny the case of typosquatting which the Complainant has evidently made out against the Respondent which entails registering a domain name that is a common misspelling of a mark in which the Complainant has rights, since, as the Complainant contends, the number “6” and the sign “-“ are both placed on the same place on an AZERTY computer keyboard thereby enabling the Respondent to take advantage of typing errors from Internet visitors to increase unjust financial gain. ...D2008-0025, most relevant in these circumstances which in itself is authority for the contention that typosquatting is evidence of bad faith registration and use. Fifthly, as earlier indicated, the Panel draws adverse inferences from the failure or refusal of the Respondent to respond to correspondence arising from these proceedings and the failure to submit a response to these proceedings within the prescribed time limits in accordance with paragraph 5(a) of the Rules. 6.10 The Panel there for finds that the Complainant has established the finding of bad faith use and registration within the ambit of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. 7. ...

2011-04-08 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2010-0964 for sanofiadventis.com html (19 KB)

However, where the disputed domain name incorporates another’s well-known trademark, coupled with just a minor typpographical error variation (known as typosquatting), and where further there are precedents evidencing Respondent’s substantially similar conduct in other cases, there is no doubt that Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract internet users for financial gain creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the disputed domain name, when in fact there is no such connection.5 In light of all the above, this Panel concludes that the registration of the disputed domain name was, on the face of it, made in bad faith and it is being used in bad faith. 7. ...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” (added emphasis)....

2010-09-08 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision DCO2012-0020 for paltalk.co html (18 KB)

By using and registering the Domain Name, the Respondent is banking on the established goodwill and consumer recognition of the PALTALK mark to drive traffic to the Website. 5.4.2 The Respondent has demonstrated a pattern of conduct by registering a set of four domain names incorporating the Complainant’s PALTALK and CAMFROG marks, each of which are associated with websites that mimic and misleadingly redirect visitors to unrelated third-party websites. 5.4.3 The Respondent is conducting a typosquatting practice i.e. by taking advantage of common spelling mistakes made by Internet users who are looking for a particular website of a particular provider of goods or services in order to obtain some benefit therefrom. Typosquatting has been held under the Policy to be evidence of registration of a domain name in bad faith. 5.4.4 The Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name is to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to his website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark in relation to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Website or of a product or service on the Website. ...

2012-08-20 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2012-0247 for laquitainn.com html (17 KB)

Complainant The Complainant first claims that it is the owner of the Trademark and that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark as it only differs from it by one single letter so that it constitutes a clear case of typosquatting (omission of the letter “n” in the Disputed Domain Name by comparison to the Trademark, whereby the term “Laquita” has no meaning in any language). ...The Respondent’s bad faith also results from the misspelling of the Complainant’s Trademark in the Disputed Domain Name (typosquatting). The bad faith of the Respondent further results from the involvement of the Respondent as respondent in numerous prior UDRP proceedings which were found against it. ...

2012-04-24 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-0339 for espin.com html (21 KB)

Omission of the terms “the bottle” makes nonsensical and can be characterized as “typosquatting”. The Respondent’s domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s “espin the bottle” registered mark. ...It is reasonable to infer that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainants’ rights in its ESPIN THE BOTTLE registered mark when it registered its domain name. Also, “typosquatting” or registering a domain name that is a nonsensical word or adds or subtracts letters or words from a mark in which a party has rights is often evidence of bad-faith registration and use. ...

2006-08-10 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-0309 for nationwideinsurace.com html (22 KB)

In this case, the suffix “insurace” is a misspelled descriptive word, i.e. “insurance”. This typosquatting evidently also results in the Domain Name being confusingly similar to the trade mark concerned. The fact that the Complainant uses the domain name for its business increases the likelihood of confusion amongst the public as this makes clear that the Respondent only registered the Domain Name to profit from misdirected traffic in search for the Complainant’s services and products. Moreover, typosquatting causes, by definition, confusingly similarity to the Complainant’s trademarks (“Respondent’s typo squatting, by its definition, renders the domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.”); see, Dow Jones & Co. v. ...

2006-05-17 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2006-0834 for aiirfrance.com, airfraance.com, airrance.com, airrfance.com html (19 KB)

The Respondent’s behaviour falls under the definition of typosquatting: “taking advantage of common misspelling made by Internet users who are looking for a particular provider of goods or services, in order to obtain some benefit therefrom” (Expedia, Inc. v. ...It is also difficult to imagine any good faith for which the Respondent might have registered four domain names which obviously constitute typosquatting of the well-known trademark “AIR FRANCE”. The Respondent uses the disputed domain names to divert Internet users to parking webpages on which several hyperlinks are displayed, many of them consisting of results in the field of tourism and travel (Annex H to the Complaint). ...

2006-09-19 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2005-0076 for gebenefit.com, gebenfits.com html (20 KB)

D2000-1409 (December 9, 2000); General Electric Company v. Momm Amed la, supra. Neither does “typosquatting”, i.e., the deliberate misspelling of an established or well known mark. Dow Jones & Company, Inc. and Dow Jones LP v. ...The well-documented bad faith conduct of Respondent and its alter egos in other cases makes the finding of bad faith registration and use in this case that much more compelling. Finally, the blatant typosquatting evidenced by Respondent’s registration and use of the domain name is one further indicia of bad faith. ...

2005-04-07 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2005-0352 for astrozeneca.com html (20 KB)

The abovementioned behavior of registering a misspelled trademark as a domain name is often referred to as “typosquatting”. The Respondent has been involved in at least two very similar UDRP proceedings where it was held that the Respondent’s re-direction of Internet users to the above-mentioned website where pharmaceuticals are sold was not a matter of non-commercial fair use. ...In reaching this conclusion, this Panel is fortified by the fact that it is convinced that the Respondent engaged in “typosquatting” as alleged by the Complainant. The Respondent clearly chose to register a word that was almost identical to the Complainant’s name and mark, making only one change of one letter. ...

2005-06-08 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2003-0273 for wwwamctv.com html (20 KB)

Absent any reasonable explanation from the Respondent – and the Response has no explanation, reasonable or otherwise (Response, passim) -- this appears to be a classic and unqualified case of "typosquatting" in which the Respondent sought confusion and error on the part of Internet users. See Citgo, supra ("The Panel finds that typosquatting does exist in this case, creating a confusing similarity between Complainant’s trademarked name and the disputed domain name.") ...

2003-06-24 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2003-0648 for vovlo.com html (20 KB)

This constitutes trademark infringement and dilution in the blurring sense, irreparably damaging a famous trademark and an invaluable asset of the Complainant. This is clearly a case of typosquatting which WIPO Panels have found to constitute bad faith (see WIPO Case No. D2002-1011 already mentioned above). ...Moreover, the Sole Panelist shares the Complainant's submission that the Respondent's behavior may characterized as "typosquatting" which falls within the general meaning of paragraph 4(b) of the Policy. The transfer of the domain name subject to these administrative proceedings shall therefore be ordered in favor of the Complainant.   7.Decision For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant.     ...

2003-10-07 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2003-0501 for xboxchaets.com, xboxcheets.com, xboxliv.com, xboxmagizine.com html (21 KB)

The Panel finds that the addition of the suffixes "magizine", "liv", "cheets" and "chaets" does not prevent the possibility of confusion. Moreover, the typosquatting of the words "magazine", "live" and "chat" is, in the Panels opinion increasing the risk of confusion considering the Complainant’s trademark registration of the trade mark XBOX for numerous products and services, including services for chats, interactive multiplayer game services and information over the internet concerning the Xbox-products and services. ...D2000-1415, the Panel stated that "An independent basis for finding that a domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark is that, by virtue of the domain name itself, the domain name may confuse Internet users as to whether the site is associated or affiliated with, or sponsored by, the trademark holder." Given that the typosquatting of the words "live", "chats" and "magazine", which specific words are likely to be related to "XBOX" by the Internet-users, and more specifically due to the nature of the Complainants use of the trade mark "XBOX" and the products related thereto, and further more given that the Respondent has defaulted, the confusion is a reasonable hypothesis. ...

2003-08-21 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2003-0914 for wwwbuongiorno.com html (19 KB)

The Complainant contends that several WIPO Panels have found that the so called "typosquatting" activities amount to an activity in bad faith. In this respect, the Complainant refers to the previously cited WIPO Cases and also to AT&T Corp. v. ...In addition to these criterions, other factors alone or in combination can support a finding of bad faith. This is a typical case of "typosquatting" where the domain name consists of a third party trademark with the addition of "www" in front of the trademark. ...

2004-01-05 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2002-0694 for financeyahoo.com, gamesyahoo.com, greetingsyahoo.com, playyahoo.com, wwwyahoochat.com, yahooauction.com, yahoohomepage.com, yahoolians.com html (19 KB)

Paragraph 55): Respondent(s)’s activities clearly constitute "typosquatting", namely, the misspelling or punctuation/letter omission of another’s name in order to divert Internet traffic via Internet users’ typographical errors. Typosquatting has been consistently found to be in bad faith both under the UDRP and U.S. law. (Paragraph 56): By registering the Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s YAHOO! ...

2002-10-07 - Case Details

WIPO Domain Name Decision D2002-0354 for officmax.com html (18 KB)

- That Respondent has no legitimate interest in the Domain Name because (1) Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name; (2) Respondent has acquired no intellectual property rights in the Domain Name; (3) Respondent’s use of the Domain Name is for commercial enterprises including "typosquatting" and "mousetrapping" that are not legitimate, bona fide or fair uses. - That Respondent registered the Domain Name in bad faith, and that his registration of the Domain Name is part of a pattern of improper activity noted by numerous previous tribunals in published decisions. - That Respondent’s typosquatting and mousetrapping activities are an intentional effort to benefit from the goodwill associated with Complainants’ mark. ...

2002-07-31 - Case Details