The spelling errors used in typosquatting have been found to produce domain names that are confusingly similar to the marks which they mimic. ...Longo,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0816 (“[typosquatting] is presumptive of registration in bad faith”)). Typosquatting can be defined as “inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith”. ...
2021-06-04 - Case Details
The mere removal of the letter “s” is not enough to avoid confusion, and appears to be mere typosquatting. Typosquatting is a practice by which “a registrant deliberately introduces slight deviations into famous marks” for commercial gain. ...This is one of the quintessential examples of bad faith, as introducing slight deviations into a registered trademark is considered to be “typosquatting.” It is well-settled that the practice of typosquatting, in and of itself, is evidence of the bad faith registration of a domain name. ...
2011-05-09 - Case Details
The Complainant considers that the Disputed Domain
Names, consisting of slight deviations or misspellings of the BARNES & NOBLE
Mark, are engineered to take advantage of Internet users who mistype a key stroke
or strokes, a practice commonly known as typosquatting. Typosquatting is evidence
of bad faith and in this respect the Complainant refers to Longs Drug Stores
California, Inc. v. ...Evidence of typosquatting is sufficient to establish
bad faith use and registration under Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. ...
2007-04-26 - Case Details
Rather, Complainant has essentially sought to prove its case by citing to principles established in prior UDRP cases that are factually distinguishable from the case at hand in order to cobble together an argument that Respondent is engaged in typosquatting and thus has no claim of rights or legitimate interests. But again, merely claiming or invoking typosquatting without more does not turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse. ...The Panel also notes that the mere fact that Respondent was found to have acted in bad faith and engaged in typosquatting in a prior UDRP case does not ipso facto mean that Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name based on the actual name “Corming” is an act of bad faith. ...
2021-07-06 - Case Details
The spelling errors used in typosquatting have been found to produce domain names that are confusingly similar to the marks which they mimic. ...Longo,
WIPO Case No. D2004-0816 (“[typosquatting] is presumptive of registration in bad faith”)). Typosquatting can be defined as “inherently parasitic and of itself evidence of bad faith”. ...
2019-08-07 - 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.”) Respondent’s addition of the “www” prefix and acronym for the “world wide web” within the disputed domain name clearly fits the definition of typosquatting, attempting to capture traffic for Internet users who mistakenly omit a period and type “wwwdfds.com” directly into their browser, as numerous prior UDRP panels have recognized. ...
2022-02-17 - Case Details
It has been held that typosquatting creates virtually identical and/or confusingly similar marks to a complainant’s trademark. ESPN, Inc. v. ...Fourth, the Panel has characterized this case as one of typosquatting. It has been held by various UDRP panel decisions that the practice of typosquatting is, by itself, evidence of the bad faith registration and use of a domain name. ...
2014-05-08 - Case Details
In fact, the Complainant also claims that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name “is intentionally designed to cause deception” through the practice of typosquatting.
Rights and Legitimate Interests
The Complainant submits that the Respondent does not have any legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name. ...The Panel identifies two specific examples where Complainant has made unfounded allegations which it ought not to have advanced in these proceedings: (1) intentional typosquatting; (2) holding the domain name “to prevent Complainants [sic] from registering it”.
With respect to typosquatting, the Complaint makes the following allegation: “it is clear that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is intentionally designed to cause deception, mistake and confusion among consumers seeking information with regard to the services of Complainant. ...
2015-09-09 - Case Details
The Panel holds with previous UDRP panel decisions that “typosquatting” domain names is characterized as constituting “essential” or “virtual” identity being confusingly similar to the trademarks that have been “squatted” (see, inter alia, Edmunds.com, Inc v. ...The contradiction between “typosquatting” and the fair use of a domain name has been confirmed in earlier panel decisions (see, for example, Microsoft Corporation v. ...
2018-07-27 - Case Details
Registered or Subsequently Used in Bad Faith
The Respondent’s bad faith registration and use is demonstrated by the following:
- the Respondent is typosquatting (the Disputed Domain Name wholly incorporates the Trade Mark);
- the Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name to redirect users to online gambling websites for commercial gain;
- the evidence strongly indicates that the Respondent was aware of the Trade Mark at the time of registration. ...It would be highly unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant when it registered the Disputed Domain Name.
This is a classic case of typosquatting. The Wikipedia entry for “typosquatting” usefully summarizes this practice:
“Typosquatting, also called URL hijacking, is a form of cybersquatting, and possibly brandjacking which relies on mistakes such as typographical errors made by Internet users when inputting a website address into a web browser. ...
2013-08-08 - Case Details
The inclusion of the letter “f” to the dominant element CORNING is clearly a “typosquatting case scenario”,
which inevitably causes it to be confusingly similar with the CORNING Trademarks. ...The inclusion of the letter “f” to the dominant element CORNING is clearly a “typosquatting case scenario”,
which inevitably causes it to be confusingly similar with the CORNING Trademarks. ...
2023-11-22 - Case Details
Shep Dog, WIPO Case No.
D2004-1069 (Finding typosquatting to be evidence of bad faith domain name registration); Lexar Media, Inc.
v. Huang, WIPO Case No. D2004-1039 (“Typosquatting has been held under the Policy to be evidence of
bad faith registration of a domain name”); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. ...
2023-03-14 - Case Details
Equally, the misspelling of “Acomplia” is the practice of typosquatting. This produces domain names that are equally confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
...The registration of the domain name a few months after the Complainant announced the launch of its product was further evidence of bad faith cybersquatting. Typosquatting is a bad faith way of diverting customers seeking the websites of the Complainant.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s
contentions.
6. ...
2005-12-01 - Case Details
D2001-1011, in which case the Panel held:
“Typosquatting (…), as a means of redirecting consumers against their will to another site, does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services, whatever may be the goods or services offered at that site. ...John Zuccarini, also cited above, in which case the Panel held:
“Typosquatting, (…), is the intentional misspelling of words with intent to intercept and siphon off traffic from its intended destination, by preying on Internauts who make common typing errors. ...
2008-01-07 - Case Details
Again, the difference between the domain names is the addition of the letter “s” .
The Respondent engages in typosquatting, which by definition, renders a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.
...The practice of typosquatting, of itself, is evidence of bad faith (see, Longs
Drug Stores California, Inc. v. Shep Dog, WIPO
Case No. ...
2006-08-30 - Case Details
D2005-0444 (“It is well-settled that the practice of typosquatting, of itself, is evidence of the bad faith registration of a domain name.”) (citing Longs Drug Stores California,, Inc. v. Shep Dog,
WIPO Case No. D2004-1069 (finding typosquatting to be evidence of bad faith domain name registration)). On the facts here, the Panel concurs.
...
2020-06-23 - Case Details
On the contrary, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent by registering the Domain Name is engaged in “typosquatting” and solely seeks to take advantage of Internet users. The Respondent’s lack of response further indicates that the Respondent does not have any legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Name.
...Furthermore, the Complainant’s MICHELIN trademark registrations predate the registration date of the Domain Name. The Domain Name constitutes a typosquatting variant of Complainant’s trademark, and typosquatting is sufficient to establish use and registration in bad faith. ...
2022-01-28 - Case Details
Typosquatting is also an indication of a lack of rights or legitimate interests
and an indication of bad faith per se.
...Typosquatting and
offering a domain name for sale are also indicative of a lack of rights or legitimate interests.
...
2022-09-15 - Case Details
The
addition of the letter “i” does not eliminate the fact that the Complainant’s trademark remains recognizable.
This is a case of typosquatting. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is not relevant in the
assessment of confusing similarity.
...D2017-0709), the Panel finds that the
use of the disputed domain name in these circumstances does not prevent the Panel’s bad faith finding.
Lastly, typosquatting may be an indication of bad faith (ESPN, Inc v. XC2, WIPO Case No. D2005-0444). In
the present case, the typosquatting indicates that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s
trademark and has added the letter “i” in order to confuse Internet users and attract Internet traffic.
...
2023-06-21 - Case Details
Ordinarily, the difference of a single letter does not obviate confusion; certain single-letter variations, known as typosquatting, are virtually per se cybersquatting; and the addition of a third letter “L” does not distinguish the Domain Name from being confusingly similar to its CALLERY mark.
7. ...D2018-1013 (transposition of the letters “e” and “u” typosquatting supporting inference of bad faith and shifting the burden to respondent); Dr. Ing. H.c. F. Porsche AG v. ...
2019-06-17 - Case Details