When stripped of the complications associated with alleged consent, this is, so far as the Domain Name is concerned, essentially a case of typosquatting. The Domain Name was chosen because of its close similarity to domain name under the control of, or otherwise associated with, the Complainant's business. ...
2010-02-05 - Case Details
As stated by the Panel in Justice for Children case, supra:
“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. ...
2013-05-13 - Case Details
Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because: (1) Respondent uses the disputed domain name to provide links to Internet users that divert them to other commercial websites that could harm the goodwill associated with Complainant, and is presumably acting for commercial gain either from pop-up advertising or referral fees; (2) Respondent is engaged in “typosquatting” because the disputed domain name differs from Complainant’s trademark solely by the addition of the letter “s”, and; (3) Respondent continued to use the disputed domain name despite correspondence from Complainant objecting to that use.
...
2012-10-15 - Case Details
D2018-1045
(inclusion of a hyphen “irrelevant” for purposes of the Policy)
Given Respondent’s historical pattern of abuse of Complainant’s MCD Mark in an email interception scheme
in the Prior Cases, the Panel considers it reasonable to infer that the variations represent intentional
reconfigurations of Complainant’s email extensions selected by Respondent as typical misspellings,
essentially typosquatting applied to Complainant’s MCD Mark centered email domain names, to be
considered further below. ...
2023-08-08 - Case Details
All of these sites
(except for , which impersonated a third party) feature Complainant’s CLARKS Mark,
often with its stylized CLARKS logo, and in all cases without authorization, to falsely impersonate
Complainant and purport to sell its footwear products under the CLARKS and DESERT BOOT Marks;
(ii) all 119 of the Disputed Domain Names themselves share a similar format and lexical pattern involving
the clearly recognizable CLARKS Mark or DESERT BOOT Mark (or a typosquatting variation of such
marks) plus generic, descriptive or geographical terms (such as “sale”, “shoes”, and “mexico”) that
make clear reference to Complainant’s industry and commercial offerings;
(iii) many of the Disputed Domain Names are registered through the same Registrar on the same or
similar dates within short periods of each other. ...
2022-08-12 - Case Details