The UDRP Blog™

Where the powers that be at Dayton Daily News determined to spend some subscription fees and go after a typosquatter In Cox Newspapers, Inc. d/b/a Dayton Daily News v. PabloPalermao , WIPO Case No. D2008-0372 (Joan Clark, May 19, 2008), the Panel required the transfer of daytondailynew .com to the owner of the registered trademark DAYTON DAILY NEWS. In finding the Respondent's domain confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark, the Panel made clear that the mere deletion of a letter from the Complainant's mark did not obviate confusing similarity: "The removal of the letter 's' is so minor, at the very end of the principal part of the domain name, that it would not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the Complainant’s mark and the disputed domain name." In discussing bad faith, the Panel emphasized that the omission of a letter from the Complainant's trademark evidenced the Respondent's bad faith: "The choice of the...

One of two Wagamama® noodle house locations in Boston. Bet my friends in the UK love this place too. In Wagamama Limited v. Park Hae Dong, Hae Dong Limited , WIPO Case No. D2008-0301 (Ross Wilson, May 6, 2008), the Panel required the transfer of wgamama.com to the Complainant owner the WAGAMAMA trademark. The Panel first reaffirmed several other decisions in holding that a domain name that omits a letter of another's trademark is confusingly similar for purposes of the UDRP: "The Respondent’s disputed domain name differs from the Complainant’s mark by simply one letter. In the disputed domain name the first 'a' is omitted. The Panel finds that the Respondent is obviously engaging in deliberately misspelling a known trademark - a practice commonly known as 'typosquatting'. The practice has been condemned by many panels and found to be confusingly similar to the marks which they mimic." Because the Respondent used the domain in connection with a website of...

In Forever 21 v. Matthias Moench , WIPO Case No. D2008-0258 (J. Nelson Landry, April 16, 2008), the Panel required the transfer of foever.com. The Complainant owned the registered mark FOREVER 21, and the Panel was readily satisfied that the omission of the first "r" in FOREVER within the disputed domain evidenced actionable typosquatting. This conclusion was bolstered by the fact that the Respondent used the disputed domain in connection with a website containing a link farm, and had been on the losing end of four prior UDRP decisions. In reaching its decision, the Panel addressed two "potential" defenses. I say "potential" because these defenses would have had a better chance of success if the Respondent filed an argumentative response. As in the majority of UDRP cases, however, the Respondent defaulted and suffered the consequences of such default. The first potential defense related to the scope of the Complainant's trademark rights and the Respond...