Complainant refers to prior Administrative panels that have indicated that
there is no conceivable good faith use to which such the practice, commonly
known as "typosquatting", can be put. The Vanguard Group, Inc.
v. RealTimeInternet.com, Inc., WIPO Case
No. D2001-0873; General Electric Company v. ...
2002-08-21 - Informations relatives au litige
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
held that typosquatting violated the Anticybersquaqtting Consumer Protection
Act. See Shields v. Zuccarini, 254 F.3d 476, 483-84 (3d Cir. 2001) (intentionally
misspelled variants -- , , ,
and -- of famous name –
-- were "confusingly similar" under ACPA, affirming summary judgment
for plaintiff). ...
2002-10-01 - Informations relatives au litige
Thus it is pursuing an activity,
sometimes called "typosquatting" (see the above cited decision WIPO
Case No. D2001-0302), which must be considered
to be bad faith under the Policy. ...
2002-04-17 - Informations relatives au litige
The Respondent is obvious engaged in what
has been named "typosquatting" a practice that in similar cases under
the Policy has been considered registered and used in bad faith especially if
the websites connected to the disputed domain is used for advertising or other
commercial means (inter alia Time Warner Entertainment Company LP and Hanna-Barbera
Productions Inc v. ...
2002-12-05 - Informations relatives au litige
D2002-0512)
awarding the Domain Name . A number of other cases of this
kind of "typosquatting" were decided for the complainants; see i.a.
AltaVista Co. v. Stoneybrook, (WIPO
Case No. ...
2002-11-05 - Informations relatives au litige
∙ The Respondent’s registration and use of a variation of the Complainant’s famous name and trademark is an example of ‘typosquatting’ which attracts Internet users who mis-type the correct name which they are looking for and then – in this case – re-direct them to an advertising-driven site for which the Respondent undoubtedly receives a fee...
2004-12-09 - Informations relatives au litige
Reference is made to the Complainant’s use of the words "cybersquatting" and "typosquatting" and to definitions of those terms.
The Respondent says that the Complainant’s case is based on the incorrect proposition that "…a misspelling of a name is ipso facto confusingly similar…". ...
2001-05-18 - Informations relatives au litige
It is well established that registrations that attempt
to capitalize on such misspellings (sometimes referred to as "typosquatting")
are actionable under the Policy. Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc. v. John Zuccarini,
WIPO Case No. ...
2003-03-20 - Informations relatives au litige
The only difference is a slight typographical error in relation to the mark of Complainant, and Complainant argues that such errors consisting of one misplaced letter easily satisfy the requirement of similarity and are, in the view of Complainant, an example of typosquatting that has been found to constitute confusing similarity, as established in other earlier cases.
...
2003-09-16 - 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
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.
...
2005-06-30 - Informations relatives au litige
AMERICA ONLINE" could
reasonably be misspelled as "AMERICAN ONLINE." Whether this be a misspelling
or "typosquatting" (or typo-squatting) need not be determined. Furthermore,
computer users could reasonably confuse the domain name
with >america.online> while looking for Complainant’s website, since Complainant
provides Internet-related services.
...
2000-12-22 - Informations relatives au litige
In light of the circumstances outlined above, the
inference is clear that the Respondent has registered the domain name and is
using it in what is commonly called “typosquatting”. It is doing
so for commercial gain. This practice has routinely been held to breach the
Policy. ...
2005-05-06 - Informations relatives au litige
Complainant
The Complainant submits that (A) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark ACOMPLIA in which it has rights; it considers that the slight misspelling of the trademark ACOMPLIA is a typical case of typosquatting; (B) the Respondent has no rights ore legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; (C) the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
...
2005-09-23 - Informations relatives au litige
Even though the above would be enough to prove the
Respondent’s bad faith, another important fact to be observed with regard
to the Respondent: as mentioned before and is also briefly referred to by the
Complainant in its submissions, is that LaPorte Holdings, Inc., is an entity
very often sought after for similar cases of cyber- or typosquatting and it
has, on every occasion, lost because of its bad faith. See Krome Studios
Pty, Ltd. v. ...
2005-04-14 - Informations relatives au litige
Many of the Domain Names could be considered typosquatting, as web users might inadvertently type the Domain Names in place of Complainants’ domain names. ...
2005-04-07 - Informations relatives au litige
D2000-0069 (, finding a deliberate attempt to take
advantage of typographical errors by users, i.e., "typosquatting").
Accordingly, the Panel finds that is confusingly similar to the registered and famous PANAVISION mark in which Complainant has rights.
...
2004-03-22 - Informations relatives au litige
Furthermore, the omission of the possessive “
‘s” of the Complainant’s well-known trademark MARTHA’S
FLOWERS in the disputed domain name, coupled with the links to competitors of
the Complainant, would not, as noted above, appear to be accidental, but deliberate
on the part of the Respondent. Indeed, such ‘typosquatting’, defined
in American Girl, LLC v. Nameview, Inc., 381 F.Supp.2d 876, 879 No. 1
as: “…. the bad faith act of using misspellings or variations of
legitimate domain names in order to trick individuals into viewing ….unrelated
websites” constitutes bad faith, because a website with a domain name
consisting of a common misspelling, often the result of mistyping or, indeed,
foreseeable typographical errors, of a famous trademark generates Internet traffic
unfairly. ...The present case, in the view of the Panel, is an example of so-called ‘typosquatting’
and constitutes bad faith on the part of the Respondent.
Also, the Panel agrees with the Complainant’s contentions, stated above, and also for the reasons advanced, including the previous WIPO UDRP decisions cited, that the so-called ‘parking’ for almost four years by the Respondent of the disputed domain name is also, in the present case, evidence of bad faith registration and use of the domain name by the Respondent.
...
2006-05-01 - Informations relatives au litige
In the case of the disputed domain name , the Complainants argue that this is a case of typosquatting, in that it is only a slight alphabetical variation from the registered mark SOFITEL, and that this is insufficient to avoid confusion between the disputed domain name and the mark. ...Somewhat more repetitively, the Complainants argue that the typosquatting activity of the Respondents in registering the disputed domain name is an indication of lack of rights and legitimate interests on the part of the Respondent; likewise, the addition of “hotel” in the case of the other two disputed domain names underlines the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests.
...
2012-03-23 - Informations relatives au litige