appears to the Panel to be an intentional misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark (typosquatting). WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9. For the purpose of...
2024-02-16 - Case Details
typosquatting. - The disputed domain name differs from the MICHELIN mark “by only one letter” and the reversal of the three central letters is a “predictable and...
2024-05-16 - Case Details
that the disputed domain name is deemed to be considered as a typosquatting scenario. Furthermore, there is no authorization or licence in favor the...
2024-05-13 - Case Details
is nearly identical to Complainant’s CHEMOURS mark; the only difference is the addition of the letters “us” at the end, which is typosquatting...
2024-01-31 - Case Details
” are adjacent keyboard letters. This is a typical example of typosquatting. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is...
2024-03-20 - Case Details
considers that the omission of the letter “d” from the trademark is a typical case of a typosquatting. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9. Although the addition...
2024-04-09 - Case Details
trademark NEDERMAN, the Respondent has created a clear situation of typosquatting and for the Panel that is an evidence that the Respondent registered the...
2024-09-26 - Case Details
the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 1.7, and 1.9 (intentional misspelling or typosquatting). The Panel finds the first element of paragraph 4(a) of...
2024-09-19 - Case Details
the letter “I”— constitutes a clear instance of typosquatting, intended to create a confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the...
2024-09-16 - Case Details
mistyping the Complainant’s website address (known as typosquatting) or to confuse Internet users into believing that the Domain Name was being operated by or...
2024-09-13 - Case Details
’ trademark reflects an intentional misspelling and thus, “typosquatting”, which cannot be considered as fair use given the inherent misleading nature of such...
2024-09-12 - Case Details
emails associated with the disputed domain name, or engaged in fraudulent activities, the Panel finds that noting the typosquatting nature of the disputed...
2024-08-12 - Case Details
trademark (typosquatting). WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9. For the purpose of assessing under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel may ignore the...
2024-08-09 - Case Details
typosquatting, since the disputed domain name simply omits the single character “s” from Complainant’s registered trademarks. B. Respondent Respondent did not...
2024-08-09 - Case Details
to the extent of use of its VARIAN mark, the typosquatting of Complainant’s mark in the Disputed Domain Name, combined with the absence of any evidence...
2023-07-28 - Case Details
skipped only the single letter “i”. The Panel finds that such misspelling or “typosquatting” by Respondent does not prevent a finding of confusing...
2023-07-20 - Case Details
second and third elements”. Similarly, the inversion of the letters “a” and “r” is an example of typosquatting and does not prevent confusing similarity...
2023-07-19 - Case Details
composition of the disputed domain name which appears to be intended to be a typosquatting registration and finds that in the circumstances of this case the...
2024-04-19 - Case Details
the Panel regards it as self- evident that the Complainant’s prior registered BFORBANK trademark was deliberately surrounded by typosquatting...
2023-08-29 - Case Details
of typosquatting. Previous UDRP panels have concluded that a domain name that consists of an intentional misspelling of a trademark is considered...
2023-08-25 - Case Details