There is no reason to believe that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to carry out
typosquatting. As stated above, and as demonstrated by the Phenix Mutual Fire Insurance Company,
“phenix” is a legitimate variant of “phoenix”.
...
2024-07-22 - Case Details
Complainants further contend
that the Disputed Domain Name is a purposeful misspelling of the RALPH LAUREN Mark and should be
considered a prototypical example of typosquatting, which intentionally takes advantage of Internet users
that inadvertently type an incorrect address – often a misspelling of the RALPH LAUREN Mark – when
seeking to access Complainants’ website.
...
2026-03-11 - Case Details
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complaint’s trademark with the exception
of the first “i” in the Complainant’s trademark being omitted from the dispute domain name. Such conduct is
referred to as “typosquatting” and does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See WIPO Overview
3.0, section 1.9.
...
2022-04-27 - Case Details
D2000-0003.
Complainant has alleged that Respondent is typosquatting. See section 3.2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
In addition, Complainant has alleged that Respondent is engaged in passive holding of the Disputed Domain
Name. ...
2022-03-28 - Case Details
These types of differences may be the kind of mis-typing which panels have frequently found to be “typosquatting”. See e.g. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9.
The fourth disputed domain name, , can be seen as an initialism of the Complainant’s trademark NORTHERN TRUST BANK plus the words “trust” and “union”. ...
2022-02-22 - Case Details
The Complainant’s request is based on the following: (1) the Disputed Domain Names both contain similar
typosquatting structures which misspell “personals” by using an “a” instead of an “e” and adds at least one “e”
elsewhere in the word “personals”; (2) the Disputed Domain Names are both designed to look like the
Complainant’s website for apparent phishing purposes; (3) the Disputed Domain Names were both registered
using the same Registrar and the same privacy protection service; (4) the Disputed Domain Names were
registered within 10 days of each other; (5) the Disputed Domain Names were both registered with apparently
false contact information; (6) the email addresses associated with the Respondent use a similar combination
of random syllables followed by a number, which both utilize the gmail service as the email provider.
...
2022-05-16 - Case Details
In addition, in light of the fact that the disputed domain name entirely reproduces the Complainant’s
trademark CARVANA except for the omission of one letter “r”, with the addition of a descriptive term related
to the Complainant’s sector, the Panel finds that this is a clear case of typosquatting, which is a further
circumstance evidencing bad faith. See Manheim Auctions Inc. v. Whois ID Theft Protection, WIPO Case
No. ...
2022-05-13 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that disputed domain name is a classic case of typosquatting. The Respondent has added an extra letter “t” to the word “pinsent” in the disputed domain name. ...
2021-06-10 - Case Details
Prior UDRP panels have found registering a domain name that adds a single letter to a complainant’s
trademark to be within the conduct commonly referred to as “typosquatting”, prohibited under the Policy, “the
practice of misspelling an element of the mark, has consistently been regarded as creating domain names
confusingly similar to the relevant mark.” ...
2022-09-13 - Case Details
La marque CARREFOUR PASS est reprise dans le nom de domaine litigieux, à la seule différence de la
lettre “a”, qui est remplacée par la lettre “o”.
Il s’agit d’une pratique bien connue de typosquatting, qui n’est pas de nature à éviter toute similitude prêtant
à confusion.
Il y a donc une similitude prêtant à confusion entre la marque CARREFOUR PASS et le nom de domaine
litigieux .
...
2022-09-26 - Case Details
The Complainant operates in more than 265 markets, and in 2020 sold more than 240,000 vehicles to retail
customers (Annexes 5, 6 to the Complaint);
(ii) The Complainant holds several trademark registrations for the CARVANA trademark and variations
thereof in the United States;
(iii) This case is a textbook case of cybersquatting, typosquatting and phishing. The Respondent is engaged
in the unauthorized use of the Complainant’s registered trademarks, as the Complainant’s trademark
page 3
CARVANA is included in its entirety in the disputed domain name with simple addition of a descriptive word
“outo” (a typographical error for “auto”);
(iv) Previous UDRP panels have recognized that the CARVANA trademark is a distinctive trademark that is
heavily advertised and well known. ...
2022-11-14 - Case Details
The addition of the third letter “l” to the Complainant’s mark, being a typical
example of misspelling of the Complainant’s trademark (i.e. typosquatting), does not avoid the confusing
similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark: in fact, RED BULL is clearly
recognizable within the disputed domain name. ...
2022-11-10 - Case Details
The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith since:
(i) the Disputed Domain Name is linked to a PPC website containing links thematically similar to the
Complainant’s activities which constitutes an attempt to generate a commercial gain by creating a likelihood
of confusion with the ZIPRECRUITER Trademarks; and
(ii) The Respondent has continually registered domain names pertaining to famous brands, either through
typosquatting or appending terms to the mark and was already involved in 7 domain disputes with the
Complainant itself.
...
2022-10-03 - Case Details
This is a behavior, which is similar to the practice of typosquatting (where respondents are misspelling
complainants’ trademarks) that clearly indicates the resemblance with the Complainant’s trademark put in
the context of the (misspelled) phrase used by the Complainant.
...
2022-07-11 - Case Details
The Panel finds that the addition of only one letter to the Complainant’s mark can be considered as
“typosquatting” and creates virtually an identical and/or confusingly similar domain name to the
Complainant’s mark (see section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0; VIEFFE S.R.L. v. ...
2022-07-15 - Case Details
The other 37 disputed domain names incorporate versions of the JOHN HANCOCK mark with a letter variously mistyped, inverted, or added. This practice is known as “typosquatting”. In each case, these disputed domain names contain sufficiently recognizable aspects of the relevant mark to be considered confusingly similar to it. ...
2021-10-28 - Case Details
Regarding the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that it differs from the CANADIAN TIRE Trademark merely by the replacement of the letter “t” by the letter “f” and by the addition of a hyphen in the disputed domain name.
This conduct is commonly referred to as “typosquatting” and creates a virtually identical and/or confusingly similar mark to the Complainant’s trademark, all the more that the letters “t” and “f” are diagonally adjacent to one another on a “qwerty” keyboard, and the Panel considers that the CANADIAN TIRE Trademark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name (Wachovia Corporation v. ...
2021-09-27 - Case Details
Complainant
In the Complaint, it is submitted that:
(i) The Complainant has spent over three billion dollars (USD) to advertise and promote its business, goods, and services under the XFINITY marks;
(ii) The XFINITY mark is one of the most valuable marks in the United States and worldwide, as evidenced by a number of rankings;
(iii) The XFINITY marks are undeniably famous and indicative of high quality and of origin associated exclusively with the Complainant;
(iv) The Complainant has incorporated its XFINITY mark in numerous other common law (unregistered) marks that are used or licensed for use for various goods and services, including, but not limited to XFINITY REWARDS and XFINITY REWARD CENTER, for providing perks, experiences and rewards to the Complainant’s customers;
(v) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s XFINITY marks, such as XFINITY REWARDS and XFINITY REWARD CENTER, with the only difference from the latter being the addition of the letter “s” to the word “reward” and omitting the word “center”;
(vi) UDRP panels have held that domain names are likely to be held confusingly similar to established marks if they incorporate the mark or a variation of the mark, including where, as here, a letter is added to the mark;
(vii) It is well accepted that an act of typosquatting is sufficient to render a domain name confusingly similar to an established mark under the Policy;
(viii) The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to a trademark to create a domain name is irrelevant when considering the similarity of a domain name (which must have a “gTLD”) to the trademark;
(ix) The Respondent has never been authorized by the Complainant to use any of the XFINITY marks or any mark confusingly similar thereto as a mark or as part of a domain name;
(x) The Respondent does not make a bona fide offering of goods or services (within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy) under the disputed domain name, which redirects Internet users to other web pages;
(xi) The disputed domain name’s use is neither noncommercial nor fair use as the Respondent presumably receives compensation in the form of “click through” or web page impression revenues from the third parties to whom visitors are redirected;
(xii) Even if the Respondent claims not to receive compensation, UDRP panels have found that the presence of advertisements constitutes a commercial element that precludes a finding of fair use;
(xiii) Nothing in the Respondent’s WhoIs information or in any other information known about it implies that the Respondent has ever, much less prior to the registration of the disputed domain name, been commonly known by the name “XfinityRewards”;
(xiv) There is no evidence that the Respondent has any trademark rights corresponding to the disputed domain name;
(xv) The only evident reason for the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name for a website was to attract Internet users looking for the Complainant’s XFINITY websites for its own commercial gain;
(xvi) The Complainant’s registration of its XFINITY marks provided the Respondent with constructive notice of the Complainant’s marks prior to the registration of the disputed domain name; and
(xvii) By registering and using the disputed domain name to operate a portal, which contains commercial links to the websites of competitors and non-competitors of the Complainant, and which presumably earns the Respondent referral or pay-per-click fees, the Respondent has sought to capitalize on the goodwill existing in the Complainant’s XFINITY marks, thus acting in bad faith as per the Policy.
...
2021-12-01 - Case Details
Furthermore, in light of the mere one letter difference denoting singular or plural between the disputed domain names and and the Complainant’s registered trademark DREAM MARRIAGE, the Panel considers this case a classic example of typosquatting (Manheim Auctions Inc. v. Whois ID Theft Protection,
WIPO Case No. D2006-1044). This conclusion was also reached in Allied Building Products Corp v. ...
2020-08-19 - Case Details
The IDN letter “ẹ” constitutes an obvious misspelling of the Complainant’s SODEXO mark that could be made by an Internet user and is characteristic of typosquatting practice intended to create confusing similarity between the Complainant’s SODEXO mark and the disputed domain name.
...
2020-08-13 - Case Details