In each of the cases cited, however, the panel found bad faith use shortly after registration or typosquatting, either of which supports an inference of knowledge of the complainant’s trademark at the time of registration and an intent at that time to profit from the mark’s renown. ...
2012-06-22 - Informations relatives au litige
A simple visual and phonetic comparison reveals that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Claimants' trademark; such conduct may already constitute cyber- and typosquatting which would constitute bad faith and a breach of Article 2 of the UCA (see e.g. YouTube, LLC v. ...
2012-06-29 - Informations relatives au litige
And it appears that Lunexor is a genuine product; it is sold by several popular online retailers and is the subject of considerable commentary on the Internet. In contrast to the garden-variety typosquatting or cybersquatting cases cited by Complainant, “Lunexor” is not a product conjured up to make money solely from exploiting another’s mark through a website.
...
2012-04-19 - Informations relatives au litige
And, Lunexor appears to be a genuine product; it is sold by several popular online retailers and is the subject of considerable commentary on the Internet. In contrast to the garden-variety typosquatting or cybersquatting cases cited by Complainant, Lunexor is not a product conjured up to make money solely from exploiting another’s mark through a website.
...
2012-04-19 - Informations relatives au litige
The Complainant says that
- The Respondents knew or should have known of Complainants’ rights in CME and CME GROUP Marks and names prior to registration of the disputed domain name;
- The Respondents engaged in typosquatting, which is per se bad faith;
- The Respondents registered and used the disputed domain name to perpetrate a fraud;
- The Respondents registered and used the disputed domain name for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s marks and names as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondents’ services; and
- The Respondents failed to respond to a letter from the Complainant’s lawyers demanding the transfer of the disputed domain name.
...
2012-10-31 - Informations relatives au litige
The subject domain names have been used to sell competing, as well as unrelated, goods and services, and this enhances the potential for a likelihood of confusion. Respondent is improperly “typosquatting” on Complainant’s trademark.
- Respondent has neither used nor has made demonstrable preparations to use the subject domain names before notice of the dispute in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. ...
2006-08-10 - Informations relatives au litige
Le requérant évoque en outre, sur l’utilisation semble-t-il, le fait que le signe en débat renvoie à une page dite “de parking” ayant des liens commerciaux faisant la promotion d’opérateurs financiers concurrents (ING Direct etc.), détournant ce faisant (avec rémunération) le trafic des internautes qui commettraient un erreur de frappe en saisissant le nom , ceci constituant une pratique de “typosquatting”.
De plus, il suggère que ledit nom de domaine pourrait être à tout instant activé pour des attaques frauduleuse de type “phishing” (hameçonnage), dont le requérant aurait d’ores et déjà été victime de la part de tiers.
...
2007-05-23 - Informations relatives au litige
In effect, the Complainant is alleging that the Respondent
is “typosquatting” - defined in previous decisions under the Policy
as the intentional registration and use of a domain name that is a common misspelling
or predictable mistyping of a distinctive mark. ...
2007-05-14 - Informations relatives au litige
The Respondent’s conduct can be considered as typosquatting, “taking advantage of common misspelling made by Internet users who are looking for a particular provider of goods or services, in order to obtain some benefit therefrom” (Expedia, Inc. v. ...
2007-07-09 - Informations relatives au litige
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s ALLIANT CREDIT UNION mark, except for one of the “l”s in “alliant,” which Complainant contends is typosquatting.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the domain name and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant.
...
2007-10-03 - Informations relatives au litige
D2006-0478 (June
12, 2006) (“..the Respondents intend to take advantage of the Complainants’
popularity by redirecting traffic from Internet users looking for the Complainants,
but misspelling the name. This form of “typosquatting” is considered
bad faith within the meaning of the Policy”).
Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation v. ...
2007-01-04 - Informations relatives au litige
Asia Venture, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2005-0946 (“typosquatting” is evidence of bad faith); Option One Mortgage Corporation v. Option One Lending, WIPO Case No. ...
2006-12-01 - Informations relatives au litige
In a contested
Complaint, the three member Panel finding no rights or legitimate interests
in the domain name in issue said.
“Typosquatting … as a means of redirecting consumers against their will to another site, does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services, whatever may be the goods or services offered at that site. ...
2007-04-03 - Informations relatives au litige
Indeed, in a 2000 WIPO decision involving Microsoft Corporation,
the panel expressly held that intentional misspellings of others’ intellectual
property (commonly known as “typosquatting”) does not constitute
fair use and is the obverse of a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain
name. ...
2007-04-02 - Informations relatives au litige
b) The Respondent’s registration and use of
the domain name is an attempt to attract, for commercial
gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with
the Complainant. This type of typosquatting is indicative of bad faith use and
registration (PRL USA Holdings, Inc. v. Unasi Management Inc., WIPO
Case No. ...
2006-03-13 - Informations relatives au litige
According to Complainant, the disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to the KAZAA mark in that each represents variations of the word “Kazaa”, known as typosquatting, or include the addition of a common or generic term which does not create a new or different trademark.
...
2006-02-10 - Informations relatives au litige
Complainant
The Complainant relies on its registration and use of the word “cyveillance” and asserts that the subject domain names are confusingly similar to its mark. The Respondent’s use of these marks is “typosquatting,” a practice intended to divert consumers who misspell the word “cyveillance” when attempting to access the Complainant’s website”.
...
2006-05-30 - Informations relatives au litige
Second, the domain name at dispute falls into the category of typosquatting,
i.e., the use of misspelling famous trademarks so as to direct users who would
make a typographical error to another website other than the one of the right
holder (Reuters Limited. v. ...
2006-04-19 - Informations relatives au litige
The Complainant says that in every case the KAZAA mark is strategically modified by adding, subtracting, re-arranging and/or replacing one or more words or letters, so as to create a new word that is either identical, or confusingly similar visually or phonetically.
5.1.2 This takes either of two forms. First, typosquatting which involves slight variations of the KAZAA trademark. For example, KAZAARS: KAZASA etc. ...
2005-01-06 - Informations relatives au litige
피신청인이 신청인 보유 상표의 저명성을
알고 있었거나 충분히 알 수 있었다고 볼 수 있는 상황 하에서, 피신청인이
분쟁도메인이름을 보유하게 된 것이 단순한 우연의 일치라고 보기 어렵고, 특히
피신청인은 인터넷 이용자들이 실수로 철자를 잘못 입력한 경우에 피신청인의
분쟁도메인이름의 웹사이트로 이동하게 된다는 점을 이용한 소위 “오자선점
(typosquatting)”을 했다는 사실을 고려하면, 피신청인의 분쟁도메인 이름 보유와
사용은 부정한 목적에 의한 것이라고 판단된다.
7. 결정
앞에서 검토한 바와 같이, 본 행정패널은 규정 제4조 (i)항 및 절차규칙 제15조에
따라서, 신청인의 신청에 따라 분쟁도메인이름 을 신청인 Adidas-
Salomon AG 에게 이전할 것을 결정한다.
__________________________________
정상조
단독패널위원
8 규정 제4(C)(i)조
9
대법원 1996.6.11. ...
2005-06-30 - Informations relatives au litige