Žalující strana uvádí, že tato praxe se nazývá „typosquatting” a že v jejím důsledku dochází k vytvoření prakticky identických a/nebo zaměnitelných označení s chráněnými označeními CARREFOUR. ...
2018-08-10 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that in addition to the disputed domain name, the Respondent currently holds registrations for several other domain names that misappropriate the trademarks of well-known brands and businesses establishing a pattern of such conduct and bad faith registration and use namely:
- (Becton, Dickinson and Company – BD)
- (Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson – ERICSSON)
- (Hogan Lovells International LLP – HOGAN LOVELLS)
- (Aktiebolaget SKF – SKF)
The Complainant argues that this portfolio of domain names held by the Respondent demonstrates that the Respondent is engaging in a pattern of cybersquatting/typosquatting, which is also evidence of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name as described in the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.2 (A pattern of abuse or a conduct of preventing a trademark holder from reflecting its mark in a domain name is found where “the Respondent registers, simultaneously or otherwise, multiple trademark-abusive domain names corresponding to the distinct marks of individual brand owners”).
...
2018-08-02 - Case Details
The Panel views the disputed domain name as a classic example of typosquatting, whereby Internet users are led astray in seeking information concerning trademarked goods or services because they inadvertently mistype an entry by one key stroke. ...
2018-08-20 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith because the Respondent is engaged in the practice of “typosquatting” and that such practice has been deemed bad faith. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its well-known MYCARD2GO trademark when it registered the Domain Name, which is per se bad faith. ...
2019-04-02 - Case Details
In this case the letter “L” is written lowercase it seems like it is an uppercase “i” letter. This is a clear case of typosquatting. Therefore, the Panel concluded that there is an obvious misspelling and the Panel is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
...
2019-03-21 - Case Details
Furthermore, the disputed domain name has been registered or acquired by the Respondent primarily to sell it to the Complainant (or any of its competitors) for a value exceeding its costs (a minimum price of USD 4,950), which is further evidence for the Respondent’s bad faith.
The disputed domain name is a typosquatting case, which aims to take advantage of a common accidental misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark, being evident that the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant and its mark when registering the disputed domain name, targeting this mark. ...
2019-10-31 - Case Details
The additional letter “d” is a misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark (i.e. typosquatting) and is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant. Furthermore, it is standard practice to disregard the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) under the confusingly similar test.
...
2020-01-16 - Case Details
Complainant
Key contentions of the Complaint may be summarized as follows:
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark notably because it merely adds an additional letter “h” into its GEICO mark, which is a common and minor typographical error that easily goes unnoticed by the average Internet user (“typosquatting”).
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with it and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use the GEICO trademark in a domain name or in any other manner.
...
2020-04-15 - Case Details
In another two, the Respondent has misspelled the famous or well-known third-party marks. This is well-established as a form of typosquatting registration. In the final two, the Respondent has combined a famous or well-known third-party mark with a descriptive term. ...
2020-03-06 - Case Details
The disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s trademark and typosquatting of descriptive word in addition to the relevant gTLD. Under these circumstances, it is most likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the registration date of the disputed domain names.
...
2019-12-20 - Case Details
Such an insignificant modification to a trademark 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. ...
2020-04-23 - Case Details
- The Respondent has deliberately registered a domain name with only a minor spelling variant, known as "typosquatting", to the well-known "pfizer" trademark in order to confuse consumers.
- The Respondent was clearly aware of the "pfizer" trademark prior to the registration of the disputed domain name as is evidenced by the fact that the Respondent allegedly sells Pfizer products, along with products from other pharmaceutical companies, on the disputed website...
2001-08-14 - Case Details
Misspellings such as
this, without an explanation from Respondent, have been previously held to be
"typosquatting" and in bad faith. General Electric Company v. Fisher
Zuieli, A/K/A Zuieli Fisher, WIPO
Case No. ...
2002-05-14 - Case Details
In the opinion of the Panel, this is a blatant attempt to attract, by typosquatting, potential customers of the Complainant to the website of one of its competitors. This certainly could disrupt the Complainant’s business in contravention of paragraph 4(b)(iii), but even if it does not, it is certainly an attempt to divert the Complainant’s potential customers to a rival website, which is a clear contravention of paragraph 4(b)(iv).
...
2001-09-21 - Case Details
Thus on the record before the Panel, it appears that when Zuccarini acquired , he was typosquatting on someone else’s domain name, but not necessarily cybersquatting on someone else’s trademark. ...
2003-03-07 - Case Details
D2002-1099 (domain name similar to Complainant’s mark, which
redirected traffic to an on-line pharmacy website selling Complainant’s
and its competitor’s drugs, constitutes “no legitimate interests
in the Domain Name...”).
Further, Respondent’s typosquatting of PFIZER’s famous mark demonstrates
a lack of legitimate use in its domain name. Clearly, Respondent has purposefully
selected these terms, which contain common typos of PFIZER’s marks, in
order to divert to Respondent’s affiliated on-line pharmacy consumers
who are attempting to locate PFIZER’s websites. ...
2005-01-06 - Case Details
D2000-0057.
6.3 Accordingly, the Panel exercises the broad discretion vested in it by Paragraph 4(f) of the Policy to consolidate the claims concerning the various domain names at issue.
6.4 Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: "A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
6.5 Since both the Complainant and Respondent are domiciled in the United States, and since United States’ courts have recent experience with similar disputes, to the extent that it would assist the Panel in determining whether the Complainant has met its burden as established by Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel shall look to rules and principles of law set out in decisions of the courts of the United States.
6.6 Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
1) that the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and,
2) that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and,
3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
6.7 The domain names at issue include names which are identical or confusingly similar to the service marks in which the Complainant has rights (e.g., "yahoosearch.com", "yahoonews.com").
6.8 Moreover, the majority of the others consist of typographical error variations and misspellings of the Claimant's trademarks (e.g., "yyahoo.com" and "geosities.com").
6.9 Respondent is obviously engaging in "typosquatting," a practice that has been condemned and been found to be confusingly similar to the marks which they mimic. ...
2000-08-11 - Case Details
Complainants further contend
that the Disputed Domain Name is a purposeful misspelling of the RALPH LAUREN Mark and should be
considered a prototypical example of typosquatting, which intentionally takes advantage of Internet users
that inadvertently type an incorrect address – often a misspelling of the RALPH LAUREN Mark – when
seeking to access Complainants’ website.
...
2026-03-11 - Case Details
Such a slight variation in a domain name that distinguish the domain name from a trademark is often referred to as “typosquatting”. See, e.g., Amazon.com, Inc. v. Steven Newman a/k/a Jill Wasserstein a/k/a Pluto Newman,
WIPO Case No. ...
2008-04-14 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the domain name is phonetically the same as the Complainant’s own name as “oe” is often represented by “ö” which, in turn, is often translated into English simply as “o”. The Complainant also invokes the “typosquatting” line of cases for the proposition that the omission of a single letter is not sufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity.
...
2007-11-01 - Case Details