The deletion of the sixth letter “i” of the Complainant’s trademark is a typical case
of deliberate misspelling of a mark or typosquatting, which does not change the overall impression produced
by the disputed domain name and does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, and the generic Top-
Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.info” must be disregarded. ...
2022-11-23 - Case Details
The disputed domain name incorporates an obvious misspelling of the ERBORIAN mark, and the textual
element of the ERBORIAN and device mark, omitting only the final letter “n”. This is an example of
typosquatting. The disputed domain name contains sufficient recognizable aspects of the marks to be
considered confusingly similar to them. ...
2023-01-12 - Case Details
The Disputed Domain Name appears to
be an example of typosquatting, i.e., a misspelling of the Complainant’s ZIPRECRUITER Trademark.
According to the the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition
(“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.9, 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. ...
2023-11-10 - Case Details
The Respondent
provided no explanations for why it registered the disputed domain names. The typosquatting nature of the
disputed domain name further supports this inference.
...
2023-04-03 - Case Details
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Given that the disputed domain name consists of a misspelling of the Trademark (i.e. typosquatting), the
Respondent was more likely than not aware of the Complainant’s Trademark at the time of the registration of
the disputed domain name. ...
2023-05-04 - Case Details
Such being the intent of the Respondent, considering the use of the typosquatting disputed
domain name for a fraudulent email scheme impersonating the Complainant, as discussed above.
...
2023-04-17 - Case Details
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s
UBREAKIFIX mark in its entirety with the omission of the letter “a” which is insufficient to differentiate
the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s UBREAKIFIX trade mark. This is a case of
typosquatting by the Respondent, to take advantage of the fact that a proportion of Internet users will
mistype the said trade mark when attempting to locate the Complainant’s website at
“www.ubreakifix.com”.
...
2023-08-30 - Case Details
Also, pursuant to section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of
WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”): “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.” This is a typical typosquatting
case as the Trade Mark is clearly recognisable within the Domain Name despite the misspelling or the
addition of the letter “e” before the Trade Mark.
...
2023-08-16 - Case Details
Bearing in mind that this requirement under the Policy is
essentially a standing requirement as a threshold to identify complainants with a genuine interest in
challenging a domain name and there is plainly a serious dispute between the parties, the Panel is prepared
for the purposes of the Policy to treat the difference as similar to misspellings such as “typosquatting”. See
e.g., WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9. Bearing in mind the different nature of the test compared to the tests
for trademark infringement and that the majority of the Complainant’s mark is reproduced in the disputed
domain name, therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark for the purposes of the Policy.
...
2023-03-29 - Case Details
The Respondent states that his registration of the disputed domain names is legitimate and cannot be
considered as cybersquatting, since he did not acquire them with the purpose to sell them, or typosquatting,
or phishing.
The Respondent asserts that there are many other domain names available containing the term “forbes”, like
, , , , , , and that the
Complainant decided to file the present Complaint four years after the disputed domain names have been
registered, when they are having web traffic of Spanish readers.
...
2023-02-02 - Case Details
D2010-1513;
(iii) The CREDIT MUTUEL trademark is undoubtedly well known in the sense of article 6 bis of the Paris
Union Convention;
(iv) According to the French Ministry Order No. 58-966 of October 16, 1958, the use of CREDIT MUTUEL
is reserved to the second Complainant in the instant administrative proceeding;
(v) The disputed domain names are identical or at least confusingly similar to the CIC and CREDIT
MUTUEL marks in which the Complainants have rights;
(vi) The disputed domain name reproduces the CIC mark in its entirety,
and the generic French terms “annulation” and “paiement”, which translate into English as
“cancellation” and “payment”, are insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name in point from the
CIC mark;
(vii) The disputed domain name includes a misspelling of the CREDIT
MUTUEL trademark, which in turn constitutes a typosquatting of the second Complainant’s trademark;
giving rise to confusing similarity, per the Policy;
(viii) The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is to be ignored when comparing the disputed domain
names to the CIC and CREDIT MUTUEL marks;
(ix) The mere addition to the generic French term “annulation”, which translates into English as
“cancellation”, is not enough to distinguish the disputed domain name
from the CREDIT MUTUEL mark;
(x) The Respondent does not correspond to a natural person’s name but rather to a business name in the
hosting/domain name/Internet business, which seems to be an attempt to hide the registrant’s identity;
(xi) The Respondent is not related in any way to the Complainants’ businesses as it is not one of their
agents nor does it carry out any activity for the Complainants;
(xii) No license or authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use or apply for
registration of the disputed domain names;
(xiii) The disputed domain name’s inactivity cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services
pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy
paragraph 4(c)(iii);
(xiv) The Respondent has never been known by the disputed domain names;
(xv) The Respondent has registered the disputed domain names precisely because it knew the strong
reputation and well-known character of the Complainants’ CIC and CREDIT MUTUEL marks;
(xvi) The addition of generic words such as “annulation” and “paiement” strongly suggests a connection
with the Complainants’ operations, and those words in combination with the CIC and CREDIT
MUTUEL marks will be understood by users as the website enabling the cancellation of a payment
made with an account linked to the Complainants;
(xvii) The disputed domain names used to share the IP address with 31 other domain names, all of which
incorporated a third-party’s well-known mark;
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2010/d2010-1513.html
page 4
B. ...
2023-03-21 - Case Details
The disputed
page 3
domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and typosquatting is in itself evidence of
bad faith. Further, the Respondent uses the disputed domain names to direct Internet users to a webpage
displaying PPC links related to the Complainant’s field of activity. ...
2023-03-16 - Case Details
Furthermore, registering the Domain Name which is confusingly similar to the Trade Marks and adding one
letter, the Respondent has engaged in typosquatting which is in itself evidence of bad faith. In addition,
under paragraph 2 of the Policy, a person registering a domain name represents and warrants to the
registrar that, to his knowledge, the registration of the domain name will not infringe the rights of any third
party. ...
2023-10-19 - Case Details
This stems from the fact that the domain name contains sufficiently recognizable aspects of the relevant
mark (see section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third
Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). This is a typical typosquatting case as the Trade Mark is clearly
recognizable within the Domain Names and despite the misspelling or the addition of the letter “e” after two
of the Domain Names and addition of terms or words “fr”, “online” and “shop” after the Trade Mark in all the
Domain Names, it does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8).
...
2023-10-16 - Case Details
In this Panel’s view, addition of letter “i” in case of the disputed domain name can be seen as an intentional
misspelling of the Complainant’s INTCOMEX trademark, i.e., typosquatting. As provided in section 1.9 of
WIPO Overview 3.0, a domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a
trademark should be considered as confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element.
...
2023-09-28 - Case Details
The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the disputed domain name is a clear case of
“typosquatting” since the disputed domain name is a slight misspelling of the Complainant’s registered
trademark. ...
2024-04-25 - Case Details
The disputed domain
page 3
name is an example of typosquatting. The associated website mimics the Complainant’s website and the
social media links resolve to the Complainant’s website
B. ...
2024-01-11 - Case Details
Commonly, the commercial gain derived from this form of typosquatting is from the connection of the domain
names to trading websites or pay-per-click parking pages featuring advertising links. ...
2023-06-12 - Case Details
There is no
other reasonable explanation for the registration of these domain names, which all combine the
Complainant’s NEXEN and BNY MELLON marks, some with typographical errors common to typosquatting.
Also, the fact that the disputed domain names resolved to a copycat site mimicking the Complainant’s site,
which created a clear likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark, and the Respondent’s use of a
privacy protection service in order to conceal his/her identity, taken together with the fact that the
Respondent has no legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, demonstrate that the Respondent
has acted in bad faith. ...
2024-03-05 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that:
- the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the STELLANTIS Mark because the Disputed Domain
Name contains the STELLANTIS Mark in its entirety, followed by the term “finacial” (a misspelled version of
“financial” without the second letter “n”) and the term “services”, followed by the generic Top-Level Domain
(“gTLD”) “.com”, and thus 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 STELLANTIS
Mark, the Respondent was not making a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use through use of the Disputed Domain Name, and the Respondent has never been
commonly known by the STELLANTIS Mark or any similar name; and
- 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 offers it for sale, and the overall
circumstances of the case support a finding of bad faith use.
...
2024-05-30 - Case Details