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
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
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
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
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
“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
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
To the contrary, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is phonetically and visually similar to the ARLA mark, and is typical of a typosquatting domain name. The Complainant submits that the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.com” should be disregarded when considering the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name under the first element of the Policy.
...The insertion of an “r” in the disputed domain name between “arla” and “foods” does not dispel the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s marks, and is strongly evocative of typosquatting.
Accordingly, the Panel finds the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
...
2016-12-27 - Case Details
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name <118bet.com> is just an alteration of the Complainant’s trademark 188BET by one number and that it is strongly indicative of typosquatting. The Complainant further claims that the use of typosquatting by the Respondent is an attempt to divert Internet users who are trying to reach the Complainant’s website to its website, and that the alteration of the one number does nothing to minimize the risk of confusion to potential customers looking for the Complainant’s website.
2) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...
2017-04-06 - 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 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
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 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
On February 3, 2009, the Complainant claims, the same journalist wrote an article about his typosquatting experience. He described how he was misled and had mistaken the Disputed Domain Name as being associated with the Complainant and that he had unknowingly misdirected readers to the Disputed Domain Name. ...The Respondent's domain name omits the letter ‘T' from its mark, which is a deliberate attempt of ‘typosquatting” and the “look and feel” of the Respondent's website is similar to that of the Complainant's.
...
2009-04-30 - Case Details
The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent has engaged in typosquatting for commercial gain and this, in itself, constitutes registration and use in bad faith (“Typosquatting is inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith”: National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues, Inc., d/b/a Minor League Baseball v. ...
2007-12-05 - Case Details
L’Expert considère en l’espèce que le nom de domaine litigieux est un cas évident de typosquatting, dans la mesure où un Internaute moyen ayant une connaissance ou un souvenir imparfait du nom PHILDAR pourrait accidentellement l’orthographier avec la lettre “f” au lieu des lettres “ph” au début du mot, induit en erreur par la prononciation de la marque PHILDAR. Cette substitution de lettres rendant le signe litigieux phonétiquement identique au nom de domaine enregistré par le Requérant est un cas évident de typosquatting. Une telle pratique vise en effet à détourner les internautes qui, commettant cette erreur de frappe en voulant accéder au site Internet “www.phildar.fr” et tapant la lettre “f” au lieu des lettres “ph”, sont alors dirigés vers un site Internet offrant des liens vers des sites dédiés à la laine, au tricot et aux vêtements, et sont donc amenés à penser que ce site est exploité par le Requérant. ...
2008-02-14 - Case Details
O'Steen, supra (emphasis in original):
“Decisions under the Policy focus upon a respondent's use of another's mark in a domain name to attract Internet users to respondent's site. This is true in typosquatting cases and in cases where a respondent selected his domain name in anticipation of subsequent sale to the mark owner. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
For similar reasons the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. By analogy to the typosquatting cases, where bad faith is presumed from the intentional similarity to the Complainant's mark, Respondent's registration and continued use were undertaken intentionally and expressly to disrupt Complainant's activities to expand the audience for his criticism by misleading Internet users as to the “source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement” of his website, by means of the initial confusion discussed in the preceding section.
7. ...
2009-03-11 - Case Details
Such insignificant modifications to trademarks is commonly referred to as “typosquatting” or “typo-piracy,” as such conduct seeks to wrongfully take advantage of errors by users in typing domain names into their web browser's location bar. ...As an initial matter, Respondent's mere act of typosquatting presents ample evidence of bad faith in the circumstances of this case. Briefing.com Inc. v. ...
2008-12-12 - Case Details
Eiser voert aan dat de domeinnaam door Verweerder wordt gebruikt om commercieel voordeel te behalen (met name via “gesponsorde koppelingen” naar websites van derden) door internetgebruikers naar zijn website te leiden. Eiser betoogt dat hier sprake is van ‘typosquatting', waarbij Verweerder gebruik maakt van de verwarring die kan ontstaan met het merk van Eiser.
...Eiser heeft voorts terecht gesteld dat sprake is van typosquatting en dat Verweerder de domeinnaam niet gebruikt om te goeder trouw producten of diensten aan te bieden, zodat Verweerder geen legitiem belang heeft. ...
2009-01-09 - Case Details