the disputed domain name and the Complainant's mark indicate that this is an example of "typosquatting" whereby the letter sequence "ure" in the...
2018-01-03 - Case Details
Disputed Domain Name in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Additionally the Disputed Domain Name appears to be a typosquatting registration...
2017-12-04 - Case Details
Internet-Nutzer bei der Eingabe des Domainnamens durch versehentliche Tippfehler derer auf die eigene Website zu lenken (sogenanntes „Typosquatting...
2017-11-27 - Case Details
as typosquatting. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has neither prior rights...
2017-10-20 - Case Details
with the Complainant. Targeted typosquatting of this nature in combination with the addition of generic terms like “go” are, in the Panel’s view...
2016-06-29 - Case Details
".net", here of no legal significance, being the added first letter "c". It constitutes typosquatting as an obvious misspelling of the Complainant's...
2016-06-24 - Case Details
typosquatting aimed at Internet users that forget to type the third "P" in between PHILIPP and PLEIN. The first element of the Policy has therefore been...
2016-06-15 - Case Details
This misspelling is a classic example of typosquatting, a practice by which a domain name registrant deliberately introduces slight deviations into a...
2016-06-09 - Case Details
consisting of the addition of the letter "M", also referred to as typosquatting, is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity as the ARKEMA...
2016-06-07 - Case Details
likelihood of confusion. This is a case of typosquatting. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The...
2016-05-26 - Case Details
goodwill in that trademark by operating a domain name comprising a simple misspelling of the Complainant's mark ( i.e. "typosquatting"). The Panel has noted...
2016-05-19 - Case Details
form of typosquatting based on a mistake made by the user searching for the Complainant on the Internet. For these reasons, the Panel finds that the...
2016-05-03 - Case Details
ampersand is omitted and the letter "c" is replaced with an "x". It is claimed that the differences are such that this is a case of typosquating, noting that...Legitimate Interests 6.8 The Panel accepts the Complainant's argument that this a typosquatting case where the Domain Name was registered because it represents...
2016-04-19 - Case Details
du terme “clients”, est pour sa part banal et le “s”, révèle simplement un acte de “typosquatting”. Ces ajouts et modifications n’altèrent en rien le...
2017-08-25 - Case Details
deletion of a letter in the middle and the addition of one at the end. This indicates a practice commonly known as “typosquatting”, where a domain name...
2017-08-09 - Case Details
"typosquatting", which creates confusing similarity with the Complainant's mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the...
2017-07-14 - Case Details
bad-faith typosquatting under the Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii), the Complainant contends. Moreover, the Complainant states, the Trade Marks are unique and...
2018-05-01 - Case Details
, however, the fact that it is an ordinary English word is not relevant at this stage of the inquiry. As the “typosquatting” cases show, the minimal...
2018-04-30 - Case Details
Complainant also asserts that typosquatting itself has been taken as evidence of bad faith. The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in an attempt to...
2018-04-09 - Case Details
registration and use of the disputed domain name that differs from the Complainant’s domain name only by the omission of a “.” amounts to typosquatting. The...
2018-02-08 - Case Details