designed to take advantage of any slight misspelling by Internet users of the Complainant’s web address, amounting to so-called “typosquatting”. This...
2018-02-08 - Case Details
“typosquatting,” where a domain name registrant deliberately registers common misspellings of a well-known mark in order to divert consumer traffic. Other UDRP...
2018-06-12 - Case Details
letter “m” with the letter “n” is an obvious example of typosquatting. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement...
2018-10-17 - Case Details
letter “a”- is a minor alteration. The present case is a case of so-called typosquatting. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect...
2018-10-10 - Case Details
keyboard, which can be seen as an example of typosquatting. The Complainant has presented consistent evidence of ownership of the trademark CHATROULETTE in...
2018-10-03 - Case Details
fact that the Domain Name is a typographical variation of its mark and that Panels have observed in other cases that typosquatting is virtually per se...
2018-09-07 - Case Details
Name merely inserts the letter “e” – which does nothing to alter the sound of the mark – into the mark. This appears to be a clear case of typosquatting...
2018-08-24 - Case Details
attempted to attract Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s marks by effectively “typosquatting” and thereby...
2018-08-22 - Case Details
Targeted typosquatting of this nature is in the Panel’s view compelling evidence of bad faith. The potential identity theft in this case is in view of the...
2018-08-09 - Case Details
trademark (often termed “typosquatting”) is confusingly similar to such trademark, where the misspelled trademark remains the dominant or principal component...
2018-08-01 - Case Details
typosquatting nature of the disputed domain name as compared to the LPL FINANCIAL mark is inherently misleading and such composition cannot constitute fair use...
2024-06-11 - Case Details
finds that Respondent selected the disputed domain name in a manner indicative of “typosquatting” in that Respondent replaced the letter “m” in...
2024-06-03 - Case Details
notwithstanding the term “group,” and substituting the letter “i” for the letter “l” is a classic example of typosquatting, especially given the visual similarity...
2024-05-29 - Case Details
marks, the typosquatting of Complainant’s mark in the Disputed Domain Name, combined with the absence of any evidence provided by Respondent to the...
2024-07-03 - Case Details
Complainant’s trademark by the letter “a”, which is considered a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark (i.e., “typosquatting”). See WIPO...
2024-07-03 - Case Details
case is a typical example of the so-called “typosquatting” case, which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9...
2024-07-01 - Case Details
or otherwise. In this regard, the Panel notes that the typosquatting nature of the disputed domain name as compared to the Complainant’s trademark is...
2024-06-26 - Case Details
make sense grammatically and can only reasonably be interpreted as a reference to the Complainant’s mark MAP YOUR SHOW, which points to typosquatting...
2024-06-17 - Case Details
states that the Respondent is guilty of “opportunistic bad faith” and also “typosquatting” by registering the disputed domain name which almost exactly...
2024-06-14 - Case Details
trademark save the letter “a” is replaced by an “e”. This is clear typosquatting. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions...
2024-08-23 - Case Details