The
disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BREAD FINANCIAL mark, dif fering only
by the omission of a letter “n” in the word “f inancial”. This constitutes typosquatting intended to mislead
consumers.
(2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...Furthermore, the disputed domain name dif fers f rom the Complainant’s coined term BREAD FINANCIAL
only by omission of a single letter. Such typosquatting evidences knowledge of the mark and intent to divert
users through foreseeable typing errors.
...
2025-09-16 - Case Details
Such minor misspellings are a classic form of typosquatting which, by their nature, cannot
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 5
establish rights or legitimate interests. ...This Panel finds it implausible that the Domain Name was registered in good faith,
particularly since the Complainant owns and uses the nearly identical domain name ,
differing only by the addition of the single letter “i”. Typosquatting is by its nature intended to take
advantage of the goodwill of a complainant’s trademark and to mislead Internet users. ...
2025-10-13 - Case Details
Notably, Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s
AKERMAN trademark and that Respondent is engaging in typosquatting. Complainant also asserts that
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as the disputed domain name
was registered more than a decade after Complainant’s registration and first use of the
domain name and more than a decade after Complainant first registered the AKERMAN trademark.
...case=D2021-1120
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 5
Respondent’s typosquatting signals an intention to confuse users seeking or expecting to do business with
Complainant. ...
2024-04-17 - Case Details
The Complainant
contends that:
- The Disputed Domain Name is formed by a typographical misspelling of the ACCENTURE trademark,
which simply swaps the letters “e” and “n” in the ACCENTURE trademark. This constitutes “typosquatting”
and is generally insufficient to materially distinguish it from the ACCENTURE trademark; and
- Internet users are very likely to be confused as to whether an association exists between the Disputed
Domain Name and the Complainant.
...The Complainant
contends that:
- The Complainant has acquired worldwide reputation of the ACCENTURE trademarks;
- The ACCENTURE trademark is a coined term with no obvious dictionary meaning;
- The Respondent had constructive notice of the ACCENTURE trademarks when it chose the Disputed
Domain Name;
- The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name that simply swaps the letters “e” and “n” in the
Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark, which constitutes typosquatting and this is evidence of bad faith;
and
- The Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name to redirect Internet users to commercial
websites through various sponsored click-through links constitutes bad faith and indicates that the
Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name with the intent to attract Internet users to its
website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s ACCENTURE
trademarks.
...
2024-04-12 - Case Details
The Complainant
contends that:
- The Disputed Domain Name is formed by a typographical misspelling of the ACCENTURE trademark,
which simply swaps the letters “e” and “n” in the ACCENTURE trademark. This constitutes “typosquatting”
and is generally insufficient to materially distinguish it from the ACCENTURE trademark; and
- Internet users are very likely to be confused as to whether an association exists between the Disputed
Domain Name and the Complainant.
...The Complainant
contends that:
- The Complainant has acquired worldwide reputation of the ACCENTURE trademarks;
- The ACCENTURE trademark is a coined term with no obvious dictionary meaning;
- The Respondent had constructive notice of the ACCENTURE trademarks when it chose the Disputed
Domain Name;
- The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name that simply swaps the letters “e” and “n” in the
Complainant’s ACCENTURE trademark, which constitutes typosquatting and this is evidence of bad faith;
and
- The Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name to redirect Internet users to commercial
websites through various sponsored click-through links constitutes bad faith and indicates that the
Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name with the intent to attract Internet users to its
website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s ACCENTURE
trademarks.
...
2024-04-12 - Case Details
The obvious
misspelling of the trademark, i.e., the inversion of the letter “e” and “l” and the deletion of the letter “t”, is a
characteristic typosquatting practice intended to create confusing similarity with a trademark. The slight
spelling variation does not prevent the disputed domain name from being confusing similar to the
Complainant’s trademark. ...The disputed domain name is a typosquatted
version of the trademark ARCELORMITTAL. Typosquatting is the practice of registering a domain name in
an attempt to take advantage of Internet users’ typographical errors and can evidence that a respondent
lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...
2024-04-09 - Case Details
Notably, the Complainant contends that:
- the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark as it incorporates a
misspelling of the WOLFSPEED Mark, specifically switching the letters “l” and “f” in the trademark, and then
adding the gTLD “.com”, which misspelling does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity;
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because the
Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to register a domain name containing the WOLFSPEED
Mark, the Respondent was not making a bona fide offering of goods or services, and the Respondent has
never been commonly known by the WOLFSPEED Mark, or any similar name; and
page 3
- the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith because, among other things, the
Respondent uses typosquatting in the Disputed Domain Name, and the overall circumstances of the case
support a finding of bad faith use under the passive holding doctrine.
...Such a minor modification to a disputed domain name is commonly
referred to as “typosquatting” and seeks to wrongfully take advantage of errors by a user in typing a domain
name into a web browser. ...
2024-05-20 - Case Details
Além disso,
af irma que sua filial no Brasil, ArcelorMittal Brasil, é titular do nome de domínio ,
registrado desde 26 de junho de 2006;
- O nome de domínio em disputa é confusamente semelhante à marca registrada da Reclamante, sendo a
supressão da letra “t” e adição de domínio de nível superior de código de país (“ccTLD”) “.com.br”
insuf icientes para diferenciar o nome de domínio em disputa da marca registrada da Reclamante,
caracterizando uma prática de typosquatting e gerando confusão sobre a titularidade e origem do nome de
domínio;
- O Reclamado não tem direitos ou interesses legítimos no nome de domínio em disputa, já que nenhuma
licença ou autorização foi concedida pela Reclamante ao Reclamado para fazer qualquer uso ou pedir o
registro do nome de domínio em disputa. ...Assim,
tem-se que a presente Reclamação se trata de um caso clássico de typosquatting, em que se registra um
sinal de titularidade de outrem, com a omissão de um caractere, por exemplo, com o objetivo de explorar
erros de digitação ou distrações dos usuários, induzindo-os a acreditar que estão acessando um canal
legítimo da Reclamante. ...
2025-09-22 - Case Details
It further states that this practice characterizes typosquatting intended to create confusion between the
Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. ...Neither
license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s
trademark ARCELORMITTAL or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant;
page 3
3) The disputed domain name is a result of deliberate typosquatting for attempting to take advantage of
Internet users’ typographical errors, and it resolves to an error page, which shows that the Respondent has
not used and has no evident intention to use the disputed domain name.
...
2025-06-20 - Case Details
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
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
Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect
of the disputed domain name since:
- the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and no authorization has been granted to the
Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademarks, consequently no actual or contemplated
bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name could reasonably be claimed;
- the Respondent did also not demonstrate use of or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed
domain name or name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of
goods or services;
- the composition of the disputed domain name constitutes clear evidence that the Respondent wishes
to give an overall impression that the disputed domain name is related to the Complainant and misleadingly
divert consumers for fraud or commercial gain;
- registering the disputed domain name that differs from the famous mark MICHELIN by only one letter,
seeks to take advantage of users and as “typosquatting” does not constitute according to the previous panels
a legitimate use of the disputed domain name; and
- since the Respondent has never replied to a cease-and-desist letter despite of several reminders,
panels have repeatedly stated that when the respondent does not avail himself of his right to respond to the
complainant, it can be assumed that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name.
And finally, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used
in bad faith arguing that:
- it is implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant when it registered the disputed
domain name, since the Complainant is well-known throughout the world, many UDRP panels have
previously acknowledged the Complainant’s reputation worldwide, making it unlikely that the Respondent
was not aware of the Complainants’ rights in said trademark;
- the composition of the disputed domain name entirely reproduces the Complainant’s trademark
MICHELIN differing only in one letter and the extension from the Complainant’s official domain name, thus it
cannot be inferred that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant when it registered the disputed
domain name and it constitutes a case of typosquatting, which is indicative of bad faith;
- a quick MICHELIN trademark search would have revealed to the Respondent the existence of the
Complainant and its trademark. ...
2025-01-28 - Case Details
This substitution and addition of letters constitute,
according to the Complainant, a deliberate misspelling of the WARTSILA trademark intended to emulate the
Complainant’s trademark, commonly referred as “typosquatting”. The disputed domain name
incorporates the entirety of the WÄRTSILÄ and WARTSILA trademarks, the only difference being the
page 3
replacement of the letter “a” with an accented “á”. ...UDRP panels consider that the misspelling of the complainant’s trademark (typosquatting) can constitute
confusing similarity for purposes of the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. ...
2024-12-30 - Case Details
In
addition, the Panel considers that such misspelling of the IMC trademark indicates a case of typosquatting.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9.
The Panel also finds that the addition of random and meaningless combinations of letters (here, “gu”, “ud”,
“zj”, and “kte”) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the
IMC trademark for the purposes of the Policy. ...Such use
cannot be considered as a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a fair use of the disputed domain
names under the Policy. Additionally, typosquatting is further evidence of a lack of rights or legitimate
interests in the fourth disputed domain name.
...
2025-10-27 - 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
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
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
It submits that the Disputed Domain Names
are confusingly similar to its trademark, because each Disputed Domain Name is comprised of “a
misspelling” of the FISHER INVESTMENTS trademark “that varies from the Complainant’s trademark by only
one letter” being “an adjacent letter of the QWERTY keyboard” to the letter being replaced, and submits that
this is classic typosquatting that is not sufficient to avoid the confusing similarity.
page 3
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the
Disputed Domain Names because the “Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use
Complainant’s trademarks in any manner, including in domain names” and none of the other circumstances
set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy apply. ...This Panel finds that this is a case of classic typosquatting where the Respondent has taken a recognizable
version of the Complainant’s trademark FISHER INVESTMENTS and incorporated it in each Disputed
Domain Name without the Complainant’s consent or authorization, for the very purpose of capitalizing on the
reputation of the trademark by diverting Internet users for commercial gain.
...
2024-08-13 - Case Details
It is a typing error
and constitutes an intentional “typosquatting”.
The Complainant further contends that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed
domain name. ...The disputed domain name
incorporates the trademark E LECLERC entirely, but with a clear and obvious misspelling. This practice is
commonly known as “typosquatting”. A domain name, which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional
misspelling of a trademark, is considered to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the
first element. ...
2024-08-13 - Case Details
The Complainant argues that the Respondent’s
intentional misspelling is an example of typosquatting – intentionally taking advantage of Internet users that
inadvertently type an incorrect address when seeking to access the trademark owner’s website and intending
to confuse Internet users.
...case=D2000-0009
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 4
Here, the Panel observes that the Respondent has included an additional letter “i” in the Complainant’s
CROWDSTRIKE mark when registering the disputed domain name. Thus, this is a classic case of
“typosquatting”, which UDPR panels have held support a finding of confusing similarity. Skyscanner Limited
v. ...
2024-09-27 - Case Details