Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its registered CHEMOURS
trademark and represents an instance of typosquatting, the deliberate misspelling of a trademark to attract
Internet users who make a small typing error or misremember the exact spelling of a mark reflected in
domain names.
...The list is expressly non-exclusive, and panels have found other indicia
of bad faith that are evident in the present case, including “a clear absence of rights or legitimate interests
coupled with no credible explanation for the respondent’s choice of the domain name” (WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 3.2.1), typosquatting (see, e.g., Learning Tree International, Inc. v. hghghjjk jghjjklk, WIPO Case
No. D2015-1243: “The Respondent has also clearly engaged in typosquatting, which evidences bad faith
registration”), coupled with a failure to answer the Complaint or take part in the UDRP proceeding (see, e.g.,
NEOVIA v. ...
2022-09-05 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name consists of an obvious typosquatting variation of
the Complainant’s distinctive mark MICHELIN, by replacing the letter “l” with the letter “m” and adding the
generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” neither of which prevent said confusing similarity.
...The Panel considers that the disputed domain name is a clear case of typosquatting. It is well established
that typosquatting can constitute confusing similarity. See, for example, The Citco Group Limited v. ...
2024-02-08 - Case Details
The intentional misspelling "dimesions" does not alter this assessment, but rather constitutes an unlawful act of "typosquatting".
Furthermore, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...The registration of the disputed domain name incorporating the Complainant's famous LEGO Trademarks in combination with "typosquatting" elements of such a famous is evidence of the registration of the disputed domain name in bad faith. ...
2016-11-01 - Case Details
D2014‑04691 . Tal prática é costumeiramente denominada typosquatting.
O nome de domínio em disputa materializa uma das espécies mais comuns de typosquatting, em que se repete uma letra do nome de domínio visado. ...D2000-0163);
Terceiros podem ser enganados em virtude de typosquatting não só na navegação na Internet mas também no recebimento de correio eletrônico enviado por quem incorpore o typosquatting no endereço de e-mail.
...
2019-02-20 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the PINSENT MASONS mark is very distinctive and that this substitution of letters does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s mark. This is a classic example of typosquatting and panels have found that the obvious misspelling of a distinctive mark in a domain name in this way renders it confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark (Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc. v. ...Considering the high level of distinctiveness of the Complainant’s mark, the reputation that it has developed since its first use in 2004 and that the disputed domain name appears to be an example of typosquatting of the PINSENT MASONS mark, it is apparent that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant’s mark.
...
2019-07-04 - Case Details
Respondent’s conduct equates to a textbook example of typosquatting and since typosquatting is as close as it is possible to come to per se cybersquatting, given that typosquatting is parasitic in nature, proof of bad faith is unitary as the Domain Names themselves are evidence of bad faith.
...All the Domain Names consist of typographical misspellings of the Trade Mark (e.g., , ). Respondent is thus clearly engaging in “typosquatting”, a practice that has been condemned and been found to be confusingly similar to the marks which they mimic (See, e.g., Yahoo! ...
2012-08-20 - Case Details
According to Complainant, Respondent is engaged in “typosquatting”, a practice which consists of the registration of a domain name which contains a slight variation of a Complainant's trademark. ...D2009-1793, regarding one domain name involving “typosquatting” and two other domain names involving the trademarked names being added to some generic term. ...
2010-07-28 - Case Details
The minor misspelling of the Complainant’s trade mark in the disputed domain name, commonly known as “typosquatting”, makes no difference to the overall impression of the dominant word in the disputed domain name. ...The disputed domain name was registered in an attempt to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s CORNING mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement. Typosquatting is, in itself, prima facie evidence of bad faith. The Respondent’s typosquatting shows that he had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s CORNING trade mark at the time of registration or constructive knowledge of the aforesaid by virtue of the Complainant’s trade mark registrations.
...
2021-05-03 - Case Details
The extra letter does not change the pronunciation, meaning or appearance of the Domain Name. This conduct is commonly referred to as "typosquatting".
The addition of the generic Top Level Domain ".com" is insignificant and does not remove the likelihood of confusion between the ESSITY mark and the Domain Name.
...Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Respondent has not filed a formal response to this Complaint or explained in the email communication that he sent to the Center why he should be allowed to register a domain name containing the Complainant's distinctive registered mark in what appears on the face of it to be a typosquatting registration.
Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use. Here the typosquatting is compounded by use of the Domain Name in a fraudulent email scam. ...
2017-10-02 - Case Details
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
This is a case of typosquatting. As noted by the learned panel in National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues, Inc., d/b/a Minor League Baseball v. ...D2002-1011:
“typoequatting, however, is the intentional misspelling of words with intent to intercept and siphon off traffic from its intended destination, by preying on Internauts who make common typing errors. Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith”.
It is self-evident, from the registration of the disputed domain name in that form, that the Respondent’s bad faith intent existed at the time of registration of the disputed domain name.
...
2013-02-22 - Case Details
Complainant
All the disputed domain names are misspellings of the word "Virgin". This conduct constitutes domain name typosquatting. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar therefore to the Complainant's trademarks.
There have been several UDRP decisions where typosquatting domain names have been transferred to the Complainant (e.g., Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Zhichao Yang,
WIPO Case No. ...
2015-04-15 - Case Details
Secondly, the Complainant contends, the transposed letters “u” and “i” are next to one another on English-language keyboards and this constitutes “typosquatting” and UDRP panels routinely hold that domain names created via typosquatting are confusingly similar to a complainant’s marks.
...Policy, paragraphs 4(a)(iii), 4(b); Rules, paragraph 3(b)(ix)(3)).
(a) The Respondent’s typosquatting constitutes bad faith Registration.
The Complainant contends that, as indicated above, this a classic case of typosquatting.
...
2017-07-25 - Case Details
In addition, Complainant argues that in light of its rights in the ENTERPRISE mark, the current use of the Domain Name is typosquatting, which exists where a domain name contains a typographical error with respect to a complainant’s mark. ...Complainant also contends that Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name indicates typosquatting and therefore both the registration and use are in bad faith. Complainant urges that typosquatting itself is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
...
2014-07-01 - Case Details
Secondly, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name:
- The domain is inactive and constitutes typosquatting. Jurisprudence holds that such practice is
inherently incompatible with a legitimate offering of goods or services...In addition, the
disputed domain name is a typographical variant of the Complainant’s mark, which constitutes typosquatting,
further supporting a finding of bad faith.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
7. ...
2025-12-26 - Case Details
Additionally, a domain name that is
a common misspelling of a mark (i.e., “typosquatting”) is considered confusingly similar. WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 1.9.
Here, is a straightforward misspelling of AKZONOBEL, resulting from the insertion of a single
letter “s”, which the record itself describes as typosquatting. ...The disputed domain name was created on October 28, 2024, long after Complainant’s Trademark had become
distinctive and widely used. The typosquatting nature of the disputed domain name supports an inference that
Respondent knew of the Complainant and targeted its Trademark at the time of registration. ...
2025-09-15 - Case Details
The disputed domain name was registered in bad faith because it is obvious that the Respondent had
knowledge of both the Complainant and its mark 1FFC at the time it registered the disputed domain name.
Indeed, its use of the “www” typosquatting prefix is evidence of bad faith because it demonstrates that the
Respondent knew about the Complainant’s 1FFC mark and its legitimate <1ffc.com> domain name. ...Moreover, considering that the disputed domain name is an obvious typosquatting of the Complainant’s
official website “www.1ffc.com”, a legitimate good faith use of the disputed domain name seems rather
unlikely. ...
2025-12-03 - Case Details
D2005-0444 (“It is well-settled that the practice of typosquatting, of itself, is evidence of the bad faith registration of a domain name.”); General Electric Co. v. Cvieli,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0377 (“[T]he practice of ‘typosquatting’ constitutes registration and use in bad faith.”); National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues, Inc. v. ...
2007-09-04 - Case Details
John Zuccarini
WIPO Case No. D2002-1011; January 21, 2003: “Typosquatting….is the intentional misspelling of words with intent to intercept and siphon off traffic from its intended destination, by preying on Internauts who make common typing errors. Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith.”.
Thus, the Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
7. ...
2007-10-01 - Case Details
From the evidence, it is apparent that the Respondent has engaged in ‘typosquatting’, for the purpose of misleadingly diverting Internet traffic, within the meaning of paragraph 4(b) of the Policy. ...Steven Newman a/k/a Jill Wasserstein a/k/a Pluto Newman,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0517:
“Typosquatting” involves the intentional registration and use of a domain name that is a common misspelling or predictable mistyping of a distinctive mark…In a typical “typosquatting” case, the respondent has registered and is using the domain name in order to take advantage of typographical errors made by internet users seeking the complainant’s commercial website and divert them to the respondent’s website.
...
2007-06-27 - Case Details
Respondent based the disputed domain name on the name of one of its products and therefore asserts that the typosquatting precedents cited by Complainant do not apply in this proceeding.
Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...Such conduct betrays an obvious intention to profit in some fashion from the complainant’s mark.3 Typosquatting cases rarely involve a respondent’s sale of real products under a real trademark at an active website.
...
2007-05-10 - Case Details