The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith since:
(i) the Disputed Domain Name is linked to a PPC website containing links thematically similar to the
Complainant’s activities which constitutes an attempt to generate a commercial gain by creating a likelihood
of confusion with the ZIPRECRUITER Trademarks; and
(ii) The Respondent has continually registered domain names pertaining to famous brands, either through
typosquatting or appending terms to the mark and was already involved in 7 domain disputes with the
Complainant itself.
...
2022-10-03 - Case Details
This is a behavior, which is similar to the practice of typosquatting (where respondents are misspelling
complainants’ trademarks) that clearly indicates the resemblance with the Complainant’s trademark put in
the context of the (misspelled) phrase used by the Complainant.
...
2022-07-11 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the addition of only one letter to the Complainant’s mark can be considered as
“typosquatting” and creates virtually an identical and/or confusingly similar domain name to the
Complainant’s mark (see section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0; VIEFFE S.R.L. v. ...
2022-07-15 - Case Details
The other 37 disputed domain names incorporate versions of the JOHN HANCOCK mark with a letter variously mistyped, inverted, or added. This practice is known as “typosquatting”. In each case, these disputed domain names contain sufficiently recognizable aspects of the relevant mark to be considered confusingly similar to it. ...
2021-10-28 - Case Details
Regarding the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that it differs from the CANADIAN TIRE Trademark merely by the replacement of the letter “t” by the letter “f” and by the addition of a hyphen in the disputed domain name.
This conduct is commonly referred to as “typosquatting” and creates a virtually identical and/or confusingly similar mark to the Complainant’s trademark, all the more that the letters “t” and “f” are diagonally adjacent to one another on a “qwerty” keyboard, and the Panel considers that the CANADIAN TIRE Trademark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name (Wachovia Corporation v. ...
2021-09-27 - Case Details
Complainant
In the Complaint, it is submitted that:
(i) The Complainant has spent over three billion dollars (USD) to advertise and promote its business, goods, and services under the XFINITY marks;
(ii) The XFINITY mark is one of the most valuable marks in the United States and worldwide, as evidenced by a number of rankings;
(iii) The XFINITY marks are undeniably famous and indicative of high quality and of origin associated exclusively with the Complainant;
(iv) The Complainant has incorporated its XFINITY mark in numerous other common law (unregistered) marks that are used or licensed for use for various goods and services, including, but not limited to XFINITY REWARDS and XFINITY REWARD CENTER, for providing perks, experiences and rewards to the Complainant’s customers;
(v) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s XFINITY marks, such as XFINITY REWARDS and XFINITY REWARD CENTER, with the only difference from the latter being the addition of the letter “s” to the word “reward” and omitting the word “center”;
(vi) UDRP panels have held that domain names are likely to be held confusingly similar to established marks if they incorporate the mark or a variation of the mark, including where, as here, a letter is added to the mark;
(vii) It is well accepted that an act of typosquatting is sufficient to render a domain name confusingly similar to an established mark under the Policy;
(viii) The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to a trademark to create a domain name is irrelevant when considering the similarity of a domain name (which must have a “gTLD”) to the trademark;
(ix) The Respondent has never been authorized by the Complainant to use any of the XFINITY marks or any mark confusingly similar thereto as a mark or as part of a domain name;
(x) The Respondent does not make a bona fide offering of goods or services (within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy) under the disputed domain name, which redirects Internet users to other web pages;
(xi) The disputed domain name’s use is neither noncommercial nor fair use as the Respondent presumably receives compensation in the form of “click through” or web page impression revenues from the third parties to whom visitors are redirected;
(xii) Even if the Respondent claims not to receive compensation, UDRP panels have found that the presence of advertisements constitutes a commercial element that precludes a finding of fair use;
(xiii) Nothing in the Respondent’s WhoIs information or in any other information known about it implies that the Respondent has ever, much less prior to the registration of the disputed domain name, been commonly known by the name “XfinityRewards”;
(xiv) There is no evidence that the Respondent has any trademark rights corresponding to the disputed domain name;
(xv) The only evident reason for the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name for a website was to attract Internet users looking for the Complainant’s XFINITY websites for its own commercial gain;
(xvi) The Complainant’s registration of its XFINITY marks provided the Respondent with constructive notice of the Complainant’s marks prior to the registration of the disputed domain name; and
(xvii) By registering and using the disputed domain name to operate a portal, which contains commercial links to the websites of competitors and non-competitors of the Complainant, and which presumably earns the Respondent referral or pay-per-click fees, the Respondent has sought to capitalize on the goodwill existing in the Complainant’s XFINITY marks, thus acting in bad faith as per the Policy.
...
2021-12-01 - Case Details
Furthermore, in light of the mere one letter difference denoting singular or plural between the disputed domain names and and the Complainant’s registered trademark DREAM MARRIAGE, the Panel considers this case a classic example of typosquatting (Manheim Auctions Inc. v. Whois ID Theft Protection,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1044). This conclusion was also reached in Allied Building Products Corp v. ...
2020-08-19 - Case Details
The IDN letter “ẹ” constitutes an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s SODEXO mark that could be made by an Internet user and is characteristic of typosquatting practice intended to create confusing similarity between the Complainant’s SODEXO mark and the disputed domain name.
...
2020-08-13 - Case Details
The Complainant adds that the misspellings of the ACCENTURE trademark comprising the disputed domain names constitutes “typosquatting,” which is generally insufficient to materially distinguish a domain name from another’s trademark.
...
2020-10-12 - Case Details
The addition of the letter “o” constitutes an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s SODEXO mark, which could be made by an Internet user and is characteristic of typosquatting practice intended to create confusing similarity between the Complainant's SODEXO mark and the disputed domain name. ...
2020-08-06 - Case Details
The Complainant maintains that the inclusion of the letter “s” in the disputed domain name does not dispel the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s mark, constitutes typosquatting, and warrants the transfer of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...
2020-11-25 - Case Details
The Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name appears furthermore to be indicative of the practice known as typosquatting.
Hence, the Complainants submit that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which they have rights according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2021-01-08 - Case Details
The disputed domain names must be considered as prototypical examples of typosquatting.
The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. ...
2020-10-21 - Case Details
The disputed domain name appears to the Panel to take the form of a deliberate misspelling of the
Complainant’s trademark, sometimes described as “typosquatting”. The intentional selection of such a
misspelling in the disputed domain name, in the circumstances of the present case, cannot confer rights and
legitimate interests upon the Respondent.
...
2022-08-01 - Case Details
The Panel
endorses the finding of numerous previous panels that confusing similarity can result from the practice of
“typosquatting”, which arises where the domain name is a slight alphabetical variation from or a deliberate
misspelling of a trademark (see Louis Dreyfus Trademarks B.V. v. ...
2022-07-29 - Case Details
This Complainant has prevailed in other UDRP proceedings against absent respondents, albeit with closely imitative domain names that were more clearly attempts at typosquatting, or with other indicia of bad faith such as using the domain name for fraudulent emails.
The balance of probabilities in this contested case does not weigh in favor of the Complainant on the question of the Respondent’s bad faith, but the record also does not support a finding that the Complaint was brought in bad faith. ...
2021-09-17 - Case Details
A presumption of bad faith is also warranted due to the Respondent’s typosquatting; see TPI Holdings, Inc. v. LaPorte Holdings,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0235. Moreover, bad faith should also be presumed because there are over 330 domain names which are associated with the Respondent’s email address. ...
2021-07-23 - Case Details
Such an alteration to the Complainant’s mark does not negate its confusing character and comprises typosquatting.
The Complainant asserts also that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...
2021-07-19 - Case Details
Against this backdrop, the Panel relies on the Respondent’s typosquatting of a widely known mark as GRANT’S to find that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. ...
2021-02-15 - Case Details
The Panel agrees with the Complainant’s contention that with regards to the ROTHSCHILD & CO mark the Domain Name is a prototypical example of typosquatting – which intentionally takes advantage of Internet users that inadvertently type an incorrect address – often a misspelling of the complainant’s trademark – when seeking to access the trademark owner’s website. ...
2022-02-07 - Case Details