The deliberate spelling errors have been recognized by previous panels as blatant examples of
typosquatting where a domain name is confusingly similar and intended to attract Internet users who make
typo mistakes. ...The disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith and this is evidenced by the
following:
a. the disputed domain names consist of nearly identical, confusingly similar versions of the
Complainant’s CHEMOURS trade mark;
b. the disputed domain names are malicious typosquats of the Complainant’s domain
name;
c. the Respondent concealed his true identity;
d. the Respondent is attempting to trade off the Complainant’s goodwill established in the CHEMOURS
trade mark; and
e. the Respondent has a clear pattern and practice of typosquatting on domain names that incorporate
confusingly similar versions of third-party trade mark registrations. ...
2022-09-13 - Case Details
Regarding the use of the term “michellin” to replace the term “michelin” of the Complainant’s trademark, the
Panel notes that this is a typical case of a deliberate misspelling of a mark (so-called “typosquatting”), by
adding, deleting, substituting or reversing the order of letters in a mark, where numerous UDRP panels in the
past have found confusing similarity to be present, see, inter alia, Yurtici Kargo Servisi A.S. v. ...The use of the term “michellin” to replace the term “michelin” does
not therefore prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s
trademark and can be considered as a case of typosquatting. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9.
Regarding the addition of the term “grupo” (meaning “group” in Spanish), the Panel notes that it is now well
established that the addition of descriptive or geographical terms or letters to a domain name does not
prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademark (see, e.g.,
Aventis Pharma SA., Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. ...
2022-11-10 - Case Details
These circumstances are present in the case at issue, along with the fact that the disputed
domain name is a typosquatting of the Complainant’s mark, which is also an indication of bad faith.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. ...The Complainant’s mark is highly distinctive and uniquely associated to the
Complainant. The disputed domain name is a typosquatting of the Complainant’s trademark SODEXO. The
Respondent failed to submit a Response and to provide evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use of
the disputed domain name. ...
2022-07-13 - Case Details
Such a difference corresponds to an obvious misspelling of the SODEXO mark which can be made by an Internet user and is characteristic of typosquatting practice intended to create confusing similarity between the Complainant’s mark and the disputed domain name. ...Moreover, this Panel emphasizes that the case at hand is a typical case of “typosquatting”, which occurs when a domain name consists of a misspelling of the complainant’s trademark. According to the consensus view of UDRP panels, a domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark normally is found to be confusingly similar to such trademark, where the domain name contains sufficiently recognizable aspects of the relevant mark, see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) at section 1.9.
...
2021-11-11 - Case Details
The Respondent’s sole motivation in registering and using the Domain Name was to capitalize on or otherwise take advantage of the Complainant’s trademark rights in furtherance of a spoofing scheme.
This is an obvious case of typosquatting and spoofing – a trademark has been incorporated into a domain name but with an additional letter in order to create fraudulent emails intended to confuse consumers.
The Complainant believes that the Respondent has an abusive practice of typosquatting and spoofing. The Respondent has registered an additional domain name () which also fully incorporates the Complainant’s well-known and distinctive trademark, further evidencing the Respondent’s efforts to capitalize on and take advantage of the Complainant’s trademark rights. ...
2021-10-22 - 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
The Respondent’s bad faith registration is buttressed by the fact that the disputed domain name is a typosquatting of the Complainant’s PERMA mark, and typosquatting, in turn, is a form of cybersquatting.
As for bad faith use, according to the evidence on file, the Respondent appears to have hacked into the Complainant’s private network and then unlawfully intercepted a private email exchange between the Complainant’s employees and one of the Complainant’s customers. ...
2021-08-24 - Case Details
The additions of the misspelled terms “mortgage” and “technology” to the disputed domain names constitute typosquatting and are insufficient to distinguish them from the ICE mark and the ICE MORTGAGE TECHNOLOGY mark. ...The registration of the disputed domain names constitutes typosquatting because they merely remove a letter from the ICE MORTGAGE TECHNOLOGY mark, which strongly demonstrates the Respondent’s bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain names.
...
2021-07-21 - Case Details
First of all, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is highly confusingly similar to its prior trademarks, since it almost identically reproduces the CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks, the only difference between them being the inversion of the letters “e” and “u”, which is a typical case of typosquatting or typo-piracy.
The Complainant adds that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.info” is not sufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from its prior trademarks, and that the likelihood of confusion between them is accentuated by the notoriety of the CREDIT MUTUEL trademarks.
...The inversion of the letters “e” and “u” in the last syllable of the CREDIT MUTUEL trademark is a typical typosquatting technique, which actually concurs to highlight the bad faith registration of the disputed domain name, since misspelling a trademark implies knowing that trademark first.
...
2021-01-26 - Case Details
En l’espèce, le nom de domaine litigieux reprend intégralement la marque BOURSORAMA, à la seule différence du remplacement du dernier “a” du terme “Boursorama” par la lettre accentuée “à”, exemple typique de la pratique dite de “typosquatting”, à laquelle a été ajouté le suffixe “.com”.
De nombreuses décisions rendues sur le fondement des Principes directeurs, ont déjà constaté, que l’incorporation d’une marque reproduite à l’identique au sein d’un nom de domaine est suffisante pour établir que le nom de domaine est identique ou semblable au point de prêter à confusion à la marque sur laquelle le requérant a des droits, en particulier dans des cas de typosquatting (voir par exemple Magnum Piering, Inc. c. ...
2021-04-14 - Case Details
In view of the above, the Panel is satisfied that it is more likely than not that the Respondent, being well aware of the goodwill of the Complainant’s GORDON RAMSAY trademark, has registered a typosquatting version of it as the disputed domain name in an attempt to exploit the trademark’s goodwill to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website which uses without authorization copyrighted materials of the Complainant and contains advertising links for commercial gain. ...As discussed above, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the GORDON RAMSAY trademark and represents a typosquatting version of it. The Respondent does not deny that it has used the disputed domain name for a website that contains unauthorized copies of recipes and photographs of the Complainant, which could very well be copyright infringement, but also contains links to recipes of a competitor of the Complainant and various advertising links. ...
2021-04-09 - Case Details
Such misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark constitutes an act of typosquatting aimed at misleading Internet users (see section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”); see also Edmunds.com, Inc. v. ...Furthermore, panels previously appointed under the Policy have decided that typosquatting amounts to bad faith registration of a domain name (see Lexar Media, Inc. v. Michael Huang,
WIPO Case No. ...
2021-02-10 - Case Details
According to the Complainant, the Respondent has engaged in typosquatting, and has intentionally chosen the confusingly similar number “0” to deceive Internet users.
...The disputed domain name is a confusingly similar version of the ONLYFANS trademark and of the Complainant’s domain name , and in the absence of any allegation or evidence to the contrary, the Panel regards it as an example of typosquatting. The evidence shows that it resolves to a website featuring pay-per-click links to what the Complainant describes as its competitors. ...
2021-02-05 - Case Details
The deliberate misspelling of the Complainant’s CHEMOURS trade mark (i.e. the omission of the letter “s” in
the disputed domain name) is a blatant example of typosquatting.
2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...the disputed domain name consists of a nearly identical, confusingly similar version of the
Complainant’s well known CHEMOURS trade mark;
b. the disputed domain name is a clear typosquat of the Complainant’s domain
name;
c. the Respondent concealed his true identity;
d. the Respondent is attempting to trade off the Complainant’s goodwill established in the CHEMOURS
trade mark; and
e. the Respondent has a clear pattern and practice of typosquatting on domain names that incorporate
confusingly similar versions of third-party trade marks. (Reference was made by the Complainant to
Caesars License Company, LLC v. ...
2022-09-07 - Case Details
The disputed domain name contains
the mark in its entirety, simply transposing the letters “v” and “i” in the middle and adding the generic Top-
Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. Such a practice is equivalent to typosquatting and does not decrease the
confusing similarity between the mark and disputed domain name. The extension “.com” present in the
disputed domain name is not to be taken into consideration when examining the identity or confusing
similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name...Such misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark is a practice commonly called “typosquatting”, a kind of
cybersquatting in which a respondent registers a domain name in order to take advantage of typing errors
eventually made by Internet users seeking a complainant’s website (see CPP, Inc. v. ...
2022-09-07 - Case Details
The disputed domain name replicates the
distinctive ANN SUMMERS trademark, replacing the first “m” with the letter “n”, which constitutes an
example of “typosquatting”.
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...Zheng Jianmeng, WIPO Case No. D2019-0234).
Moreover, as to “typosquatting”, section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP
Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) states: “A domain name which consists of a common,
obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the
relevant mark for purposes of the first element.”
...
2022-09-06 - Case Details
Digi Real Estate Foundation,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1043 (“This is clearly a ‘typosquatting’ case where the disputed domain name is a slight misspelling of a registered trademark to divert Internet traffic … In fact, the domain name comprises the Complainant’s trademark […] with a single misspelling of an element of the mark: a double consonant ‘s’ at the end.”). ...In view of the evidence of unregistered or common law trademark rights adduced by Complainant, including Respondent’s clear-cut use of the disputed domain name to in furtherance of an illegal phishing scheme targeting Complainant’s customers, plus Respondent’s clear attempt at homoglyph typosquatting on the AMW trademark, the Panel concludes that Complainant has established the first element of the Policy.
...
2021-12-09 - Case Details
There appears to be no reason to register the disputed domain name other than to take advantage of Internet users who mistype the website address “www.kyndryl.com” (so-called “typosquatting”). That does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services for the purposes of the Policy. ...The registration of the disputed domain name is a case of typosquatting of the Complainant’s website address “www.kyndryl.com“. There appears to be no plausible reason to register the disputed domain name other than to take advantage of Internet users who mistype that address in a browser. ...
2022-02-09 - Case Details
Such an addition of a single letter to a mark is typical of “typosquatting” behavior. The incorporation of the Complainant’s mark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to said mark.
...While there are legitimate reasons why an individual might use such a service, the Panel finds it more probable in light of the apparent typosquatting involved in the registration and use of the disputed domain name that the Respondent’s selection of a privacy service to conceal its identity, in the circumstances of the present case, formed part of an attempt to delay or to prevent the Complainant from protecting its trademark against cybersquatting. ...
2022-01-14 - 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