The sole purpose of registering the domain names at issue by the Respondent was to cause confusion and divert the legitimate business of Complainant to itself or to the products produced by Complainant’s competitors.
6.19 Moreover, the Respondent is using the above domain names to divert Internet traffic to unrelated websites offering competitive or at least similar goods and services to Sodexho’s ones by exploiting the confusion with the well-known marks SODEXHO and SODEXHO PASS.
6.20 This is then an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Complainant’s competing websites and to other different websites.
6.21 Such a use creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s
marks SODEXHO and SODEXHO PASS, as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or
endorsement of the sites to which the domain names redirect Internet users.
Typosquatting constitutes registration and use in bad faith (General Electric
Company v. Fisher Zvieli, a/k/a Zvieli Fisher WIPO
Case n° D2000-0377).
6.22 The registration and use of the concerned domain names also tarnish and dilute the SODEXHO and SODEXHO PASS marks by confusing consumers as well as potential consumers and interferes with Sodexho’s business by frustrating attempts by Internet users to reach Sodexho’s official websites.
6.23 As LaPorte Holdings, Inc. has already engaged in abusive registrations of domain names, it is hardly likely that the company LaPorte Holdings, Inc. registered the above domain names without knowing the existence of the mark “SODEXHO” and “SODEXHO PASS”, that it may have legitimately think to be able to lawfully use the domain names at issue when registering them and that the choice of these domain names results from a mere coincidence due to very distinctive and arbitrary character of the coined names “SODEXHO” and “SODEXHO PASS”.
6.24 The Respondent was given notice that it had time until April 28, 2005, to send response to the Complainant and to the center, that it would be in default if it did not do so and that, by virtue of paragraphs 14 of the Rules, the Panel might draw such inferences from its default as it considered appropriate. ...
2005-07-25 - 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
While that reversal cannot be described as a simple typographical error, the Panel considers it is as conducive to mistaken recollection as many examples of so-called “typosquatting”. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9. Accordingly, the Panel finds this disputed domain name is also confusingly similar to the Second Complainant’s trademark.
...
2021-07-30 - Case Details
The Respondent has redirected these five domains to his own site and the Complainant suggests that registration of these domain names amounts to typosquatting.
On September 8, 2009, the Respondent registered which refers to a casino in Michigan City, Indiana, United States, called “Blue Chip Casino”. ...
2013-11-28 - Case Details
D2004-0175,
“Decisions under the Policy focus upon a respondent’s use of another’s mark in a domain name to attract Internet users to respondent’s site. This is true in typosquatting cases and in cases where a respondent selected his domain name in anticipation of subsequent sale to the mark owner. ...
2014-07-31 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that this is a clear case of typosquatting and that the registration is an abusive registration within the meaning of sub-paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv) of the Policy.
...
2009-05-29 - Case Details
First, as best understood by the Panel, the Respondent asserts that she is not a “classic cybersquatter” inasmuch as her business did not: engage in typosquatting, register and warehouse any domain name in an extort payment from a trademark holder by offering to sell that name to that holder, trade on the goodwill of a complainant, or divert Internet users to pornographic websites.
...
2007-04-11 - Case Details
Having regard to all of the foregoing considerations, the Panel’s conclusion is that this is a case of blatant typosquatting, where the Respondent has registered a slightly mis-spelt version of the Complainant’s mark in a bad faith attempt to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website. ...
2012-02-22 - Case Details
Cost Net Domain Manager,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0970 (typosquatting). When the mark is an everyday word or phrase panels more often decline to find registration in bad faith based solely upon a claim of constructive notice, even when the parties are both American. ...
2012-01-13 - Case Details
The position here is undoubtedly factually complex, and the Complainant’s claims and the material relied upon to support those claims are described in greater detail later on in this Decision.
5.3 So far as the substance of the remainder of the Complainant’s case is concerned, it can be summarised relatively simply as follows:
(i) all of the Domain Names, except the domain name , incorporate one of the Complainant’s marks in its entirety in combination with ordinary English words;
(ii) in the case of , the domain name represents a "classic case of typosquatting" with the second "P" in the APPLE mark being replaced with letter "O", which is next to the letter "P" on a standard qwerty keyboard;
(iii) given this, the Domain Names are all confusingly similar to at least one mark in which the Complainant holds rights;
(iv) Mr. ...
2013-10-17 - Case Details
The Panel observes that for several of these domain names, the letters “LI” have been positioned before the PSEG mark. The variations suggest possible typosquatting in relation to Complainant’s PSEG trademark. In light of all of this information and the submission from Complainant’s legal counsel that Respondent, in his communications, had admitted he was aware of Complainant and had heard of Complainant’s agreement with the Long Island Power Authority and that he registered the domain name variations for the PSEG mark with this in mind, the Panel finds that it is more likely than not Respondent registered all of the domain names, including the Domain Name in this case, for reasons other than to create a new marketing channel for his business.
...
2013-11-13 - Case Details
The Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name is a form
of bad faith domain name registration and use known as "typosquatting"
– the registration of domain names that are identical to popular website
domain names except for slight differences that may occur as a result of common
keyboarding or spelling errors in order to misdirect Internet users to the mis-labeled
website [22].
...
2003-01-24 - Case Details
The Panel observes that for several of these Domain Names, the letters “LI” have been positioned before the PSEG mark. The variations suggest possible typosquatting in relation to Complainant’s PSEG trademark. In light of all of this information and the submission from Complainant’s legal counsel that Respondent, in his communications, had admitted he was aware of Complainant and had heard of Complainant’s agreement with the Long Island Power Authority and that he registered the Domain Name variations for the PSEG mark with this in mind, the Panel finds that it is more likely than not Respondent registered all of the Domain Names for reasons other than to create a new marketing channel for his business.
...
2013-11-13 - Case Details
The Complainant also maintains that, by registering and using the disputed domain names, the Respondent
is engaged in bad faith typosquatting. The Respondent has registered the disputed domain names, which
consist of Complainant’s VERIZON trademark, or obvious misspellings thereof, and obvious misspellings of
the terms “administrative”, “charge”, and “settlement”, and seeks to profit from Internet traffic generated by
the fact that some Internet users might inadvertently misspell the Complainant’s VERIZON trademark and/or
the words “administrative”, “charge”, or “settlement” when they type the address of the Settlement Website
into their browsers as they seek to locate the Settlement Website on the Internet, and will be diverted to one
of the websites at the disputed domain names which feature pay-per-click links to advertisements for third-
party products and services.
...
2024-04-23 - Case Details
Moreover, the whole modus operandi of the Respondents from the initial cybersquatting registration of the domain name, the hope that may be inferred that sooner or later CavinKare may be forced to buy the name, the process of typosquatting to induce consumers to go to other websites, all constitute bad faith. The fact that Respondent 2 is a serial offender only reinforces that conclusion.
...
2005-02-25 - Case Details
It is of course
possible that separate cybersquatters may have independently decided to engage in this very particular form
of “typosquatting”, using the same Registrar and at approximately the same time, but this seems improbable.
...
2022-04-04 - Case Details
The Respondent goes on to argue that the Complainant has engaged in ‘typosquatting’ by registering two domain names that are very similar to the name of its competitor Digivote Ltd and is engaging in the same conduct as it alleges against the Respondent. ...
2005-03-02 - Case Details
Frequently, Respondent has sought for registrations which make slight variations or “typosquatting” of the concerned trademarks.
• Complainant sent a demand letter to Respondent without response...
2004-06-23 - Case Details
For example, the Panel notes in this respect that in a subsequent
typosquatting case, the author of the Dover Downs decision cited and relied upon United States case
law; see Scrum Alliance, LLC v. ...
2025-09-25 - Case Details
The search results confirmed the Presiding Panelist’s
assessment of the Respondent’s intent and conduct as cybersquatting – a determination with which the
majority does not appear to disagree – on account of a number of core factors:
(i) the FORD mark is well-known and used worldwide;
(ii) the disputed domain name incorporates the FORD mark in its entirety, as well as the FORDDIRECT
and FORDDIRECT.COM marks almost in their entirety, with an obvious and common misspelling of these
marks that moreover carries no alternative genuine meaning;
(iii) the disputed domain name used this misspelling for the Respondent’s commercial gain, making for a
classic case of typosquatting; and
(iv) the disputed domain name has been linked to third-party web presence in the automotive industry,
as well as to parked pages displaying pay-per-click links.
...
2022-10-21 - Case Details