Eiser voert aan dat de domeinnaam door Verweerder wordt gebruikt om commercieel voordeel te behalen (met name via “gesponsorde koppelingen” naar websites van derden) door internetgebruikers naar zijn website te leiden. Eiser betoogt dat hier sprake is van ‘typosquatting', waarbij Verweerder gebruik maakt van de verwarring die kan ontstaan met het merk van Eiser.
...Eiser heeft voorts terecht gesteld dat sprake is van typosquatting en dat Verweerder de domeinnaam niet gebruikt om te goeder trouw producten of diensten aan te bieden, zodat Verweerder geen legitiem belang heeft. ...
2009-01-09 - Case Details
Such insignificant modifications to trademarks is commonly referred to as “typosquatting” or “typo-piracy,” as such conduct seeks to wrongfully take advantage of errors by users in typing domain names into their web browser's location bar. ...As an initial matter, Respondent's mere act of typosquatting presents ample evidence of bad faith in the circumstances of this case. Briefing.com Inc. v. ...
2008-12-12 - Case Details
The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent has engaged in typosquatting for commercial gain and this, in itself, constitutes registration and use in bad faith (“Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith”: National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues, Inc., d/b/a Minor League Baseball v. ...
2007-12-05 - Case Details
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
- 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
Complainant also alleged that the registration of this domain name by the Respondents constituted typosquatting. This consists of the registration of domain names that are likely misspelling of famous marks in anticipation that customers would make a mistake, thereby increasing the number of hits one’s site would receive, and consequently the number of advertising dollars they would gain. ...Although the specific intent of the Respondents. is not obvious, the nature of the modification of the Complainant’s service mark by the Respondents, i.e. the deletion of one letter and all the surrounding circumstances lead to the reasonable inference that the registration and use of this domain name was an exercise in typosquatting.
Further, the Complainant alleged, upon information and belief, that when the Respondents registered the disputed domain name, they used a false address and telephone number. ...
2002-12-09 - Case Details
Complainant asserts that this is not a legitimate use.
"Typosquatting" Indicates Lack of A Legitimate Interest
Complainant alleges upon information and belief, that the Respondent has purposefully selected the term "Lipator," which contains a common "typo" to the Complainant’s LIPITOR mark, to divert consumers, who are attempting to locate the Complainant’s site, to the website of . ...The Complainant further contends that this bad faith registration is exemplified by the following:
(i) the Complainant’s mark is a mark that has a strong reputation around the world;
(ii) although the Respondent was aware of the LIPITOR mark, the Respondent deliberately registered a domain name with only a minor spelling variant, known as typosquatting, to the well-known LIPITOR mark in order to confuse consumers and to profit from such confusion.
...
2003-03-26 - Case Details
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
Complainant also contends that Respondent’s practice of "typosquatting"
by registering and using a common typographical error made by Internet users
who are trying to access Complainant’s web site constitutes bad faith registration
and use under Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy.
...Fisher Zvieli a/k/a Zvieli Fisher, (WIPO
Case No. D2000-0377).
Although "typosquatting" cases such as this one do not fall squarely
within the four enumerated factors, numerous panels have found that registering
a name that is a common typographical error from a well-known trademark or web
site address is bad faith. ...
2003-02-03 - Case Details