Complainant
Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name uses the entirety of the NORTHERN TRUST Mark
with the only exception of deletion of the letter “r” which creates an identical impression and is typosquatting.
Complainant submits that it has no relationship with Respondent and has never licensed or otherwise
authorized Respondent to use the NORTHERN TRUST Mark for registration of the Disputed Domain Name
or in any other way.
...WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.2. Moreover, the apparent typosquatting in the Disputed
Domain Name is indicative of bad faith in these circumstances.
As regards use, the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website that redirects users to some pay-per-click
links offering similar services to Complainant, which shows Respondent has intentionally attempted to
attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with
Complainant’s NORTHERN TRUST Mark. ...
2025-03-24 - Case Details
This is an example of an
intentional misspelling of a trademark that results in a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark,
and a typical case of typosquatting. In the Panel’s view the omission of the letter “n” results to be a common,
obvious, or intentional misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark, and cannot prevent a finding of confusing
similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark since the disputed domain
name contains sufficiently recognizable aspects of the relevant mark. ...On the balance of probabilities, and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel concludes that
the Respondent set out to target the Complainant and to deceive users by engaging in a typosquatting
scheme, adopting a domain name with a slight misspelling of the Complainant’s mark, with an intention to
divert Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the
source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or of a product on its website. ...
2025-04-22 - Case Details
The
Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name is virtually identical and/or confusingly similar
typosquatting to the LENNAR marks in its entirety, with only the addition of the descriptive word “mortgage”
after the word “Lennar”...The name of the disputed domain name alone illustrates bad
faith and an effort to fraudulently mislead consumers into believing that the Respondent offers mortgage-
related services. The disputed domain name constitutes typosquatting, which is further evidence of bad-faith
registration.
The Complainants ask the disputed domain name to be transferred to Lennar Pacific Properties
Management, LLC.
...
2025-02-24 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark,
because it incorporates a slight common misspelling of the SCRIBD mark by removing the letter “d” from the
end, constituting a classic case of typosquatting. The prefix “dl” is a common abbreviation for “downloader”,
which does not dispel confusing similarity; rather, it increases the likelihood of confusion.
...The
intentional misspelling of the mark in a clear case of typosquatting constitutes bad faith in itself. The
Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name to attract Internet users for commercial gain
by creating a likelihood of confusion with the SCRIBD mark.
...
2025-11-26 - Case Details
The Complainant
contends that this constitutes an obvious misspelling of the mark SODEXO and is characteristic of
typosquatting practice intended to create confusing similarity. The Complainant argues that consumers will
read and/or perceive the element “sdexo” as SODEXO and, consequently, disputed domain name as
“sodexo.website”, particularly given that the Complainant owns the domain name .
...In the case at hand, the Panel notes the following circumstances that
support a finding of bad faith despite the current passive holding of the disputed domain name:
(a) The Complainant's SODEXO mark is distinctive and has a strong reputation internationally;
(b) The disputed domain name consists of a misspelling (typosquatting) of the Complainant's well-known
mark, with no conceivable good faith use; (c) The Respondent's initial use of the disputed domain name
was to host pay-per-click links to the Complainant's competitors, demonstrating a pattern of bad faith
exploitation. ...
2025-10-31 - Case Details
página 3
- El nombre de dominio en disputa reproduce las marcas de la Demandante L’Óreal pero con un error
ortográfico evidente, cual es la adición de una “s”, por lo que debe ser considerado similar hasta el punto de
causar confusión con aquéllas, constituyendo un claro ejemplo de “typosquatting”, conducta que se viene
calificando como un uso de mala fe.
- El Demandado no es comúnmente conocido en el mercado bajo la denominación “aesop” y no ha sido
autorizado, ni directa ni indirectamente, por las Demandantes, para su uso...D2025-0310); y (ii) en segundo lugar, la
comparación entre el nombre de dominio en disputa y los signos distintivos de la Demandante L’Óreal llevan
a la conclusión de que el Demandado ha incurrido en un supuesto obvio de “typosquatting”, por cuanto el
elemento denominativo único que compone el nombre de dominio en disputa coincide con el elemento
distintivo principal de los signos de la Demandante L’Óreal con la única e irrelevante diferencia de haber
añadido una consonante final, la “s”, diferencia que no evita la similitud hasta el punto de causar confusión
con la marca AESOP. ...
2026-02-16 - Case Details
D2001-1314), the Panel considered that the similar domain names at issue were a clear example of “a case of ‘typosquatting’ where the domain name is a slight alphabetical variation from a famous mark. WIPO jurisprudence offers many examples of confusing similarity brought about through easily made typing errors by an Internet user – particularly when the mark is another language from that of the user’s mother tongue.”
...Moreover, as stated in the Amendment to the Complaint, Ma Ying Jo has been involved in several other typosquatting cases in connection with INTESA SANPAOLO.
The Complainant further submits that the Respondent appears to have utilized a privacy registration program. ...
2013-06-19 - Case Details
iv) The Respondent has engaged in the practice of “typosquatting”.
(v) The Respondent’s failure to respond to the cease and desist letter is indicative of bad faith.
...There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the Respondent, or any business or organization operated by him, might be “commonly known” by the Domain Name and thus able to rely on the defense provided at paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.1 The Respondent’s very choice of a domain name which is different from the Complainant’s mark by only one letter, coupled with his use of the Domain Name to provide “sponsored links” advertising revenue, raises an obvious question as to whether this is a case of bad faith “typosquatting”.
The combination of circumstances just described sufficiently establishes a prima facie case of “no rights or legitimate interests”, so the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. ...
2013-04-30 - Case Details
The Complainant states that it had already established a significant presence in the market by the time the disputed domain name was registered in October 2010, and submits that the disputed domain name is a deliberate misspelling of the MOMONDO trademark (“typosquatting”) that the Respondent is intentionally using in order to gain commercially through click-through revenue by attracting Internet users to its website by creating a a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s MOMONDO name and trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or of the third-party services advertised through it. ...The Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name appears to constitute “typosquatting,” namely the registration of domain names that consist of common or predictable misspellings of third-party trademarks in order to attract Internet traffic intended for a complainant (see inter alia Wachovia Corporation v. ...
2013-01-24 - Case Details
D2012-1662, finding that it is permissible for the panel to ignore the generic top level domain suffix and also that the addition of the descriptive and generic term “www,” one of the common server names which forms part of a website’s URL, does not negate the confusing similarity encouraged by the respondent’s complete integration of the complainant’s trademarks in the domain name.
“Typosquatting” has consistently been regarded as creating Domain Names confusingly similar to the relevant mark. ...The Panel also finds bad faith evidenced by the fact that the Respondent did not use the disputed Domain Name in connection with a legitimate offering of any goods or services, and other panels have already determined typosquatting to be inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith. See e.g. Allstate Insurance Company v. ...
2012-12-17 - Case Details
It contends that the names are pronounced differently and asserts that it is not a case of typosquatting because the initial letters are too far apart on a QWERTY keyboard.
The Respondent contends that it does have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names. ...The Respondent contends that this is not a case of typosquatting because the letters “w” and “g” are too far apart on the keyboard for an Internet user to make a typing mistake. ...
2015-02-03 - Case Details
“Natiowide” is not a word—it is an obvious misspelling of “Nationwide”—there is no reason for Respondent to have registered the domain name other than its intent to capitalize on misdirected traffic.
Complainant relies on typosquatting cases, such as Wachovia Corporation v. Peter Carrington,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0775, Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc. v. ...Registering a domain name that consists of a misspelling of a trademark and using it for the same services aims at disrupting the trademark owner’s business. It characterizes typosquatting.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered intentionally to misdirect customers looking for Complainant’s website. ...
2014-01-16 - Case Details
Such variants of a trademark are held to be "typosquatting" and normally will be found to be confusingly similar to the trademark. The Panel has no hesitation in finding the disputed domain name is a classic case of typosquatting and is confusingly similar to the Complainant's NAUKRI and NAUKRI.COM trademarks.
...
2014-11-28 - Case Details
Warren Bolton Consulting Pty Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1293).
“[…] a case of ‘typosquatting’ where the domain name is a slight alphabetical variation from a famous mark. WIPO jurisprudence offers many examples of confusing similarity brought about through easily made typing errors by an Internet user – particularly when the mark is another language from that of the user’s mother tongue.”
...The Panel on the basis of the evidence as placed before it concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered with the clear intention to profit from typosquatting and such use does not constitute bona fide offering of goods or services nor legitimate noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain name.
...
2014-08-27 - Case Details
The disputed domain names, , and , are, in the Panel's view, clearly confusingly similar to both the LATEROOMS and LATERROOMS.COM marks, as they contain the same set of letters with minor, but deliberate, misspellings of either "late" or "rooms". The Panel finds this to be a classic typosquatting scenario, wherein an Internet user, seeking the website of a well-known trademark or service mark holder, may be led to an unwanted website because the user inadvertently typed two letters out of sequence. ...Domain.Contact,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0994 (March 3, 2004) ("'Typosquatting' is a practice in which a respondent registers domain names with slight misspellings of a complainant's mark to divert Internet traffic. ...
2016-07-11 - Case Details
The Panel finds it clear that altering the Complainant's trademark by one letter is strongly evocative of typosquatting, which "consists of registering misspelled trademarks as domain names, and then deriving profits from Internet users seeking the rightful owners of those trademarks as revenues can be generated by web links and pop-up advertisements on the websites to which those domain names point or on the websites on which those domain name are parked" (see Thomson Broadcast and Media Solution, Inc., Thomson v. ...In the present case, the Panel concurs with the Complainant's claim that "the addition of an "s" in a disputed domain name is a purposeful type of misspelling, particularly as an "s" is often added to words to denote a plural or ownership . This appears to be a case of 'typosquatting' conduct which creates a virtually identical and/or confusingly similar mark to the Complainant's trademark for the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy" (see Corcom, Inc. v. ...
2015-11-10 - Case Details
The Complainant also notes that as a result of the identical "odafone" element, there is a significant degree of visual and phonetic similarity such that appearance of the disputed domain name is similar and that it is a classic instance of "typosquatting". The Complainant concludes that disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the VODAFONE trademarks.
...There is a significant degree of visual and phonetic similarity such that appearance of the domain name is confusingly similar and that it is a classic instance of "typosquatting". In the Panel's assessment, there is no doubt, that the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademarks VODAFONE in with a typographical error and that the addition of the Top-Level Domain gTLD ".net" does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the trademark of the Complainant (Lilly ICOS LLC v. ...
2016-06-21 - Case Details
The provisions of paragraph 4(b) of the Policy are without limitation and bad faith may be found otherwise by the Panel.
The scheme known as Internet typosquatting or typopiracy is well recognised. That is the registration of a domain name that mimics a legitimate domain name or trademark except for a devious error, in the expectation that a percentage of users will make the same error by either using the wrong spelling or by hitting the wrong key and will, in consequence, be led to the Internet presence of the scheming party. ...Having regard to all the evidence, the Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with the intention of typosquatting on the Complainant's trademarks, in the expectation that some users seeking the Complainant will accidentally hit the "e" key instead of "r" and be misled into visiting the Respondent's website, potentially generating commercial gain for the Respondent by confusion of the visitor within the contemplation of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
...
2016-06-20 - Case Details
The Disputed Domain Name includes the Complainant’s trademark, trade name and domain name registrations for and registered prior to the Disputed Domain Name, with the omission of the letter “r”.
This, it contends, is therefore a case of typosquatting consisting of bad faith domain name registration and use due a difference in the spelling of the original trademark.
...The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name includes the Complainant’s trademark, trade name and domain name registrations for and registered prior to the Disputed Domain Name, with the omission of the letter “r”. This is therefore a case of typosquatting in the light of the difference in the spelling of the Disputed Domain Name compared to the Complainant’s trademarks.
...
2016-05-12 - Case Details
Le Requérant soutient que la présence d’un “e” supplémentaire correspond à une erreur de frappe très courante et par conséquent relève du typosquatting.
Le Requérant soutient que le Défendeur n’a aucun droit sur le nom de domaine litigieux, ni aucun intérêt légitime qui s’y attache. ...En effet, le Défendeur est un utilisateur des services du Requérant depuis 2015. Le Requérant soutient que la pratique du typosquatting constitue, en elle-même, une preuve de la mauvaise foi. Le Requérant souligne que le site Internet vers lequel le nom de domaine litigieux dirige promeut des produits et services proposés par des concurrents du Requérant. ...
2020-07-31 - Case Details