The Panel considers this to be a clear case of typosquatting.
As such, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. ...D2006-0845).
As previously mentioned, this is a case of typosquatting, where the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Trade Mark save for the omission of one letter. ...
2016-11-07 - Case Details
The Panel considers this is likely to be a case of typosquatting.
As such, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. ...The Panel agrees with this view. As previously mentioned, this is a case of typosquatting, where the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Trade Mark save for the omission of one letter. ...
2016-11-03 - Case Details
It is likely that the Respondent is receiving click-through revenue from the PPC links on the website at the Disputed Domain Name.
- As previous UDRP panels have found, typosquatting does not constitute a legitimate use of the Disputed Domain Name (see, e.g., Edmunds.com, Inc. v. ...Previous UDRP panels have also found that if a respondent has engaged in typosquatting, that may be sufficient to establish registration and use in bad faith (Barnes & Noble College Bookstores, Inc. v. ...
2018-06-29 - Case Details
They submit that the Domain Name is an example of “typosquatting,” i.e., capitalizing on the near-identity between the Domain Name and the Complainants’ Mark. ...The Domain Name in this case is a clear instance of “typosquatting” for the reasons already identified above. The Panel accordingly concludes that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith.
...
2016-02-17 - Case Details
Additionally, panels have consistently found that a domain name consisting of a misspelling of
the complainant’s trademark (i.e. typosquatting) is considered confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9. ...Complainant
The Complainant contends that Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name is considered as typosquatting, and therefore is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CORNING trademarks. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name i...
...
2024-02-27 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the Respondent is engaged in typosquatting in order to divert Internet traffic to the Respondent's website, which features advertising links to other websites offering motivational products competing with those of the Complainant.
...Further, this is strongly evocative of the practice commonly referred to as “typosquatting” – the intentional registration and use of a domain name that is a common misspelling of a distinctive mark. ...
2010-08-02 - Case Details
There is no legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the disputed domain name is a case of
typosquatting and leads to an inactive website.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is registered and is being used in bad faith. ...The disputed domain name represents a case of typosquatting, which may be an indication of bad faith
(ESPN, Inc v. XC2, WIPO Case No. D2005-0444).
2. ...
2022-06-15 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that this misspelling amounts to typosquatting and that on a QWERTY or AZERTY keyboard the “l” is next to the “i”. As a consequence it asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark registration.
...The Complainant notes that its TECHNISEM mark is distinctive and the Respondent obviously chose the disputed domain name with a slight variation for the purpose of typosquatting and of the domain name email scam as described above. Finally, it notes that the Respondent is currently the holder of more than 1,000 domain names and suggests that a large part of these involve examples of typosquatting of well-known marks.
...
2020-10-19 - Case Details
As the disputed domain names differ from the Complainant's trademark by one letter, the disputed domain name is a typical example of typosquatting. See RX America, L.L.C. v. Tony Rodolakis,
WIPO Case No. D2005-1190.
The practice of typosquatting intentionally takes advantage of Internet users who inadvertently type an incorrect address – often a misspelling of the complainant's trademark – when seeking to access the trademark owner's website. ...Tony Rodolakis, supra (referring to intentional misspellings as "typosquatting", which "has consistently been regarded as creating domain names that are confusingly similar to the relevant mark"). ...
2016-11-17 - Case Details
Respondent has engaged in such “typosquatting” to take advantage of users seeking to find Complainant’s domain name .
Second, Complainant states that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. ...The current case appears to be a clear case of “typosquatting”, i.e., the intentional registration of a domain name with slight misspelling of a third-party trademark. ...
2017-06-15 - Case Details
The Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name amounts is an example of typosquatting. The Respondent has made no use of the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name was registered on November 30, 2018.
5. ...The registration of the disputed domain name is a clear example of typosquatting, where the Respondent hopes in some way to make a profit from the inadvertent typing errors of Internet users who type the TOMMY BAHAMA trademark into their web browsers. ...
2019-04-12 - Case Details
The Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name is a classic case of typosquatting. The Respondent has made no active use of the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name was registered on December 3, 2018.
5. ...The registration of the disputed domain name is a clear example of typosquatting, where the Respondent hopes in some way to make a profit from the inadvertent typing errors of Internet users who type the TOMMY BAHAMA trademark into their web browsers. ...
2019-04-12 - Case Details
Complainant
The Complainant asserts that:
- the disputed domain name is highly similar to the Complainant’s mark NATIXIS and represents a clear case of typosquatting. The disputed domain name and the Complainant’s mark NATIXIS are both composed of seven letters. ...The only difference is the replacement of the middle letter “i" by an “l” which are very close from a visual standpoint, representing a classic example of typosquatting – the registration of domain names with different letters that appear similar in different fonts.
...
2019-04-25 - Case Details
Respondent registered the Domain Name with the Trademark in mind with the intention of generating internet traffic which is intended for Complainant. It is established case law that typosquatting constitutes unfair use and is the opposite of a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name.
...Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name is a classic example of typosquatting. It is generally held that typosquatting in itself is sufficient to establish registration and use in bad faith.
...
2015-07-22 - Case Details
Only one letter has been changed. This is a blatant example of typosquatting where the spelling of a trademark has been altered minimally by the substitution of only one letter.
...The reasons for this finding can be summarized thus:
(a) The typosquatting inherent in the minor variant of the Complainant's mark. Typosquatting is obvious evidence of bad faith (see Wikimedia Foundation Inc v. ...
2015-12-08 - Case Details
The spelling errors used in typosquatting have been found to produce domain names that are confusingly similar to the marks which they mimic. ...Longo,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0816 ("[typosquatting] is presumptive of registration in bad faith")). Typosquatting can be defined as “inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith”. ...
2020-02-19 - Case Details
The spelling errors used in typosquatting have been found to produce domain names that are confusingly similar to the marks which they mimic. ...Longo,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0816 (“[typosquatting] is presumptive of registration in bad faith”)). Typosquatting can be defined as “inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith”. ...
2019-10-29 - Case Details
It incorporates said trademark, differing only by the addition of the letter “e”, which
misspelling does not eliminate confusing similarity, but on the contrary, is an act of typosquatting. It is
visually and phonetically similar to said trademark. Domain names that constitute typosquatting are
confusingly similar by definition because their sole attraction is confusing similarity to known trademarks.
...The evidence of
typosquatting is suggestive of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name. ...
2023-07-27 - Case Details
Complainant also claims that it is well settled that diverting Internet traffic, by way of typosquatting, to a website offering sponsored links to competitors of a complainant is prima facie evidence of no rights (ESPN, Inc. v. ...A respondent's attempt to derive a financial benefit from typosquatting also constitutes evidence of bad faith (Expedia, Inc. v. Collazo,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0716).
...
2009-05-13 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that this is a clear case of typosquatting. The disputed domain name is visually confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trade marks and the name of the Complainant's official website. ...Previous cases under the UDRP have shown that where the registration of the domain name constitutes typosquatting, the disputed domain name is, by definition, to be regarded as confusingly similar. The present case should be considered as a case of typosquatting as Internet users searching for the Complainant's official website may easily mistype the name and reach the website of the Respondent instead.
...
2009-12-14 - Case Details