However, given that the Complainants’ slots, sport and games offerings are accessed at “ www.betvictor.com/slots”; “www.betvictor.com/sports”; and “www.betvictor.com/games” (respectively) an even greater likelihood of confusion arises, akin to typosquatting.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel accepts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names. ...
2013-09-04 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent’s conduct in registering the disputed domain name is equivalent to typosquatting.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name on the following grounds:
1. ...
2013-11-18 - Case Details
The disputed domain name and constitute "typosquatting" conduct as they are virtually identical and/or confusingly similar to the Complainant's AMAZON trademark.
12) Likewise, the disputed domain name substituting only the letter "l" for the letter "o" in the Complainant's GOODREADS trademark is an insubstantial variation.
13) Six of the disputed domain names , , , , and contain two of the Complainant's trademarks namely, AMAZON and FIRE trademarks.
14) The overall impression of the disputed domain names is one of being connected to the trademarks of the Complainant.
15) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. ...
2014-09-23 - Case Details
Le Requérant allègue que la notoriété de son journal électronique a fait l’objet de plusieurs actes de typosquatting dont plusieurs ont été réglés à l’amiable sauf un porté devant le Centre de l’OMPI qui aurait été en sa faveur, voir Hassane EL GUENNOUNI c. ...
2015-10-06 - Case Details
The substitution of
similar-appearing characters such as numbers that use to look like letters, which is the case with number “0”
and the capital letter “o”, is typical example of typosquatting, in accordance with section 1.9 of WIPO
Overview 3.0.
Finally, it is well accepted practice by UDRP panels that a gTLD, such as “.com”, is typically ignored when
assessing whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark (see section 1.11.1 of
the WIPO Overview 3.0). ...
2022-08-18 - Case Details
The Panel agrees in this regard with the approach set out in WIPO
Overview 3.0, section 1.9, namely:
“Is a domain name consisting of a misspelling of the complainant’s trademark (i.e., typosquatting)
confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark?
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.
...
2022-11-15 - Case Details
The disputed domain name was registered in bad faith in the
knowledge of the Complainants’ rights and with the Complainants in mind after the expiration of the said
agreement. Said registration (including intentional typosquatting) was made to attract Internet users, for
commercial gain, to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants’
marks.
...
2023-04-12 - Case Details
Finally, it is well settled that the practice
of typosquatting constitutes evidence of the bad faith registration of a domain name. For these reasons,
Respondent’s conduct must be considered bad faith use and registration of the Domain Name.
...
2025-06-04 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that, respectively, the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to its trademarks, because each of the Disputed Domain Names either incorporates in its entirety each trademark, or is simply typosquatting, and that the similarities are not removed by the addition of the letter “s” “at a different point (or points) of each domain name”.
...
2018-06-28 - Case Details
However, the Panel notes that that earlier decision was a case of typosquatting, unlike the present proceeding.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. ...
2019-11-14 - Case Details
The Complainant further argues that the Disputed Domain Names and are the form of typosquatting because the Disputed Domain Names are slight misspellings of the Complainant’s domain name. ...
2019-11-21 - Case Details
Such a substitution or deletion has long been recognised as “typosquatting” and the disputed domain name readily qualifies as confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy. ...
2022-04-05 - Case Details
Furthermore, because the minor changes described above constitute typosquatting, the Domain Name is, by definition, confusingly similar to the TOKYO 2020 Mark. See Edmunds.com, Inc v. ...
2020-06-19 - Case Details
The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name is a case of misspelling and typosquatting.
The Panel also agrees with the Complainant’s contention that the gTLD “.com” does not grant the disputed domain name distinctiveness regarding the trademark KHADI. ...
2021-11-11 - Case Details
There is a further reason for finding confusing similarity. In the Panel’s view, this is a case of ‘typosquatting’ where the domain name is a slight alphabetical variation from a famous mark. WIPO jurisprudence offers many examples of confusing similarity brought about through easily made typing errors by an Internet user – particularly when the mark is another language from that of the user’s mother tongue.
...
2002-02-18 - Case Details
v) Many of the Domain Names are designed to take advantage of Internet users making typographical errors, and “typosquatting” constitutes bad faith.
(vi) Respondent was on notice of Complainant’s rights in its YAHOO!...
2005-01-06 - Case Details
Moreover, the registration
of mis-spellings, or typosquatting has previously been found to be presumptive
of bad faith in itself. See WIPO Case No.
D2002-0423 (Dell Computer Corporation v. ...
2004-06-11 - Case Details
Respondents’ pattern of registering domain names which are confusingly similar variations of other marks also indicates its bad faith engagement in the practice of "typosquatting." See Yahoo!, supra, and CeoCities v. Data Art Corp. et al., Case No. D2000-0587 (WIPO August 10, 2000), § 6.9 at 7; AOL v. ...
2001-03-07 - Case Details
Demandante
Las manifestaciones de hecho y argumentos de derecho en que la Demandante apoya la procedencia de su acción son los siguientes:
(i) El nombre de dominio es similar en grado de confusión a la marca AUTÉNTICOS TIGRES UANL y diseño en razón de que incorpora dos de los elementos más distintivos de esta última, a saber “Auténticos Tigres”, amén de que se reproduce el logotipo protegido por dicha marca mixta, lo cual inclusive podría acarrear procedimientos de infracción y competencia desleal;
(ii) Si bien la marca registrada de la Demandante es AUTÉNTICOS TIGRES UANL y diseño, esto no previene la posibilidad de confusión frente al nombre de dominio , ya que esta práctica de eliminar en el nombre de dominio una o más letras, en este caso UANL, se conoce como “typosquatting” y ha sido extensamente condenada por los Grupos Administrativos de Expertos;
(iii) Del reporte de búsqueda de antecedentes registrales expedido por el Instituto Mexicano de la Propiedad Industrial se desprende que la Demandada no es conocida entre el público por la denominación Auténticos Tigres, como sí lo es la propia Demandante;
(iv) La Demandada carece de derechos e intereses legítimos en el nombre de dominio en disputa ya que no cuenta con autorización o licencia alguna por parte de la Demandante para haber registrado y usado un nombre de dominio que incorpora la marca registrada de esta última;
(v) La Demandada registró el nombre de dominio en conflicto el 14 de agosto de 2003 y posteriormente lo actualizó el 20 de agosto de 2008, sin que a la fecha existan preparativos serios, inclusive vagos, del uso leal del mismo;
(vi) La denominación AUTÉNTICOS TIGRES configura una marca notoria en México atento al alto grado de reconocimiento que aquélla goza dentro del sector relevante de los equipos de fútbol americano en el país con motivo de su uso continuo desde 1974;
(vii) La notoriedad y presencia de la denominación AUTÉNTICOS TIGRES queda acreditada con los resultados de las búsquedas efectuadas mediante los buscadores Google, Yahoo, Altavista y Lycos, todos ellos asociando dicha denominación con la Demandante;
(viii) En múltiples resoluciones de Grupos Administrativos de Expertos se ha establecido que el registro de una marca notoriamente conocida constituye mala fe en términos de la Política;
(ix) La Demandada conocía o debía conocer la marca de la Demandante al momento de solicitar el registro del nombre de dominio en disputa toda vez que por un lado ambas partes están domiciliadas en la misma entidad federativa y por otro, ya que la Demandada no podía ignorar la existencia de dicha marca notoria que es ampliamente difundida a través de la prensa deportiva y otros medios de comunicación;
(x) El nombre de dominio en disputa fue registrado con el único propósito de obtener un beneficio económico, como lo demuestra el ofrecimiento en venta, renta o administración que apareció durante mucho tiempo en el Portal respectivo, lo cual acredita la mala fe de la Demandada en el contexto de la Política.
...
2009-05-26 - Case Details
The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name constitutes an act of “typosquatting”, which in and of itself constitutes bad faith. Accordingly, the Complainant argues that it would be difficult for the Respondent to prove that it did not have actual knowledge of the Complainant. ...
2009-08-31 - Case Details