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
D2008-1302 ( omission of “s” constitutes typosquatting which is by definition evidence of a confusingly similar domain name). The addition of the TLD “.com” is irrelevant in determining whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar. ...
2021-12-08 - Case Details
The Panel also notes here additional factors under WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4, and cases cited thereunder, from which the Panel may infer bad faith registration:
(i) Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name involving Complainant’s INSTAGRAM Mark with the addition of the terms “help” and “secure” after Complainant’s development of its online Help Center featuring its recently launched Security Checkup services to “help” users whose accounts may have been hacked take the steps needed to “secure” their accounts, strongly suggests that the disputed domain name was registered to make an undue profit based on Complainant’s rights and to confuse consumers searching for Complainant and its services;
(ii) complainant’s INSTAGRAM Mark is a famous mark; it would be inconceivable that Respondent might have registered the disputed domain name without knowing of it;
(iii) the evidence of typosquatting to confuse consumers addressed in section 6A above, through the substitution of the initial letter “I” in Complainant’s INSTAGRAM Mark with a different letter, a lower- case “L” which resembles an upper case “i”; and
(iv) the lack of Respondent’s rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...
2022-02-11 - Case Details
The Complainant’s evidence of the alleged “business email compromise” scheme by the Respondent is its Annex 8, which consists of an email thread beginning on September 27, 2021, continuing through an email sent on October 18, 2021.
Panels have consistently found that clear typosquatting is sufficient to support an inference of bad faith, shifting the burden to the Respondent to offer evidence rebutting the inference. ...
2022-01-21 - Case Details
In light of the misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name, i.e. the omission of an accent from the term “credit” and of two letters from the word “mutuel” in the Complainant’s trademark and the inversion of the resulting words “credit” and “mute”, the Panel finds that the Respondent engaged in typosquatting, which constitutes additional evidence of bad faith registration. See, along these lines, Manheim Auctions Inc. v. ...
2022-01-12 - Case Details
The Disputed Domain Name appears to contain an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s VORWERK mark, as it misses out the letters “o” and “r”. This “typosquatting” creates a confusing similarity to the Complainant’s trade mark under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy (see, for example, Wachovia Corporation v. ...
2016-08-23 - Case Details
In den streitigen Domain-Namen sind die Worte „my”, „swiss” und „chocolate”, die auch in der registrierten Marke der Gesuchstellerin 2 zu finden sind, vollständig und in derselben Reihenfolge enthalten, obwohl, im Fall vom Domain-Namen ein Buchstabe „o” fehlt. Hier liegt jedoch ein typischer Fall von „Typosquatting” vor, welcher der Verwechslungsgefahr nicht entgegensteht. Die Bindestriche zwischen den Wörtern im Domain-Namen vermögen dessen Erscheinungs- und Klangbild ebenfalls nicht massgeblich zu verändern.
...
2013-02-11 - Case Details
The Complainants finally consider that these registrations amount to typosquatting cases, where the Respondent aims to mislead users in making them believe that it would operate as DDI. ...
2013-02-27 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that such a minor difference is insignificant for purposes of confusing similarity and that such conduct is widely known as ‘typosquatting’.
(iv) The Complainant has argued that such “slight differences are obvious misspellings or typographical errors” do not eliminate confusing similarity.
...
2013-03-13 - Case Details