In the case of the Domain Name , “accomplia” is combined with the “generic or descriptive” word “buy”.
5.2 The Complainant refers to numerous cases under the Policy that are said to support the proposition that such misspelling (or “typosquatting”) “has been considered insufficient to avoid confusing similarity”. These cases include Sanofi-Aventis v. ...
2008-03-04 - Case Details
It appears that the Respondent is engaged in a practice known as “typosquatting” – where a domain name is a slight variation from a well-known mark in order to divert Internet traffic. ...
2007-05-22 - Case Details
It appears that the Respondent is engaged in a practice known as “typosquatting” – where a domain name is a slight variation from a well-known mark in order to divert Internet traffic. ...
2010-05-25 - Case Details
These omissions and additions are considered “typosquatting”
because the domain names are likely to create confusion due to their visual
similarity to the respective marks. ...
2004-10-06 - Case Details
부정한 목적의 등록 및 사용의 점에 관하여는, 신청인이 대한민국과 미국 등지에서 SAM’S CLUB 표장에 대한 상표등록을 한 점, 신청인이
운영하는 웹사이 트“www.samsclub.com”에서 신청인의 상표등록 사실을 고지하고 있는 점, 피신청인이 자신의 웹사이트에서 온라인
쇼핑에 대해 언급하면서 비교 쇼핑의 수단으로서 신청인의 웹사이트를 인용한 점 등에 비추어 볼 때 피신청인이 신청인의 상표 혹은 웹사이트에
대해 인지하고 있었다고 볼 수 있으며, 피신청인의 웹사이트에 게재된 성적 묘사 사진 등에 의해 가족 중심의 영업을 표방하는 신청인의 명성
등에 손상을 가하고 있는 점, 신청인이 제공하는 것과 유사한 상품 및 서비스를 제공하는 상업 링크를 웹사이트에 연결하고 있고 관련된 금전적
이익이 추정되는 점, 소비자의 오타 등을 이용한 소위 “typosquatting”의 사례에 해당하는 점, ,
, , 및
등 정당한 권리를 보유하지 아니한 도메인이름을 다수 등록, 사용하고 있는 점 등에 입각하여 부정한 목적에 의한 등록 및 사용이 인정된다고
주장하고 있다.
...
2006-07-06 - Case Details
In the view of the Panel, however, and in line with other decided "typosquatting"
cases under the Policy, the deliberate creation of initial interest confusion
and the consequent diversion of Internet traffic is sufficient to establish
bad faith on the Respondent’s part." ...
2003-06-18 - Case Details
The Respondent owns or controls hundreds of four letter domain names which are
acronyms of international organizations, universities, public organizations,
Spanish translations of well-known web-sites, names of shopping malls as well
as minor variations to well-known trademarks (‘typosquatting’). The Respondent
is not complying with his obligations to provide information and his whereabouts
in his registration particulars. ...
2002-06-14 - Case Details
This Panel finds, consistently with a long line of typosquatting decisions by other panels, that the substitution of the letter "g" with "6" in the Complainant’s trademark incorporated into the Disputed Domain Name <6ucci-j4p4n.com> as well as the descriptive and geographical words misspelled in the “misspellings” Domain Names do not serve to adequately distinguish the “misspellings” Domain Names and so these also remain confusingly similar to the registered trademark: see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 1.7.
...
2013-11-27 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that its VERIRPO trademarks are highly distinctive” yet the Respondent found
15 other VERIPRO trademarks, 11 companies doing business as VERIPRO and 139 domain names
incorporating “veripro”.
7. The Complainant accuses the Respondent of “typosquatting” [sic] yet its domain name is
and no “veripro” domain name is exploited by the Complainant.
8. ...
2022-09-16 - Case Details
Some of these, like the two disputed domain
names, duplicate each other or may be seen as variants attempting to block potential typosquatting. Only
some of the Respondent’s domain names are active: the Respondent mentions he has four websites and
there is evidence of three blogs. ...
2022-11-01 - Case Details
Finally, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name
in bad faith since (1) the Complainant’s BANQUE POPULAIRE VAL DE FRANCE trademark was registered
on December 9, 1987, while the disputed domain name was only created on November 29, 2001, (2) the
Respondent uses the disputed domain name in order to display hyperlinks that redirect users to websites
offering competing services, and (3) the Respondent offers the disputed domain name for sale at a price of
EUR 26,101.97, which is an excessive sum that can only be justified by typosquatting.
Regarding its request that the language of proceedings be French, the Complainant basically contends that
(1) at the time of the filing of the Complaint, the Complainant did not know the language of the registration
agreement, (2) the disputed domain name refers to the Complainant, being a well-known bank and
trademark in France, (3) the links integrated into the website to which the disputed domain name resolves
are denominated in French and lead to other websites offering services in French, and (4) the filing of the
Complaint translated into English would lead to additional delays, which would be unfair to the Complainant.
...
2026-02-03 - Case Details
The Panel presumes that the
Complainant is seeking to assert that the disputed domain name is a common, obvious, or intentional
misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark, sometimes colloquially referred to as “typosquatting”.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. ...
2025-08-26 - Case Details
The Complainant describes the Respondent’s actions as an “extortion scheme” and a “typosquatting scheme” which demonstrate bad faith through its offering of the disputed domain name for sale in exchange for a price of USD 250,000, being considerably in excess of its out-of-pocket costs.
...
2019-07-26 - Case Details
This fact demonstrates that the Respondent is engaging in a pattern of cybersquatting/typosquatting, which is evidence of bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names. The Respondent has indeed registered the domain names and that also redirect to the website associated with the domain name which reinforces the fact that he registered multiple trademark-abusive domain names to intentionally confuse Internet users into visiting his websites for commercial gain. ...
2020-03-16 - Case Details
The Panel finds that this is a blatant example of typosquatting where a domain name attracts Internet users who make a small typing error, e.g., forgetting a letter or adding one.
...
2020-08-21 - Case Details
Given the wide use of the trademark TALANTIX (for recruitment services by the Complainants), the Panel opines that this case appears to be a typical case of a deliberate misspelling of a trademark (so-called “typosquatting”), by omitting, adding, or substituting the order of letters of a trademark, which is guided under paragraph 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (WIPO Overview 3.0). ...
2021-09-22 - Case Details
Complainant further contends that Mr. Zuccarini’s notorious pattern of flagrant typosquatting demonstrated in other, prior cases corroborates the bad faith apparent in registering these sites. ...
2002-09-06 - Case Details
D2000-0869
(domains of complaint sites suggested typosquatting, there was evidence of actual
confusion, and respondent reserved other domain names incorporating famous marks);
Rollerblade, Inc. v. ...
2006-09-04 - Case Details
This change does not significantly affect the appearance or pronunciation of the domain names and reflect what is commonly referred to as “typosquatting”, namely intentional misspelling of a well-known trademark. Such virtual identity has been held by many UDRP decisions to constitute confusing similarity. ...
2010-03-10 - Case Details
Complainant
5.1 The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its INTUIT mark. It contends that this is a case of typosquatting with the fourth and fifth letter of the word “Intuit” being transposed to create the Domain Name.
5.2 On the question of rights and interests, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no legitimate relationship to the Complainant giving rise to any licence, permission or authorisation to use the Domain Name. ...
2008-10-29 - Case Details