The administrative panel at the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center has rendered several decisions in which they assessed the legality of “typosquatting.” The panel has concluded that in cases where (1) the disputed domain names included close misspellings of famous trademarks, (2) where the registrants of such domain names did not have a legitimate interest in registering these domain names, and (3) where they registered and used these domain names in bad faith, the registration was infringing and the domain name had to be transferred to the original trademark owners.

The following questions have been addressed in this article:

What were some of the examples of the typosquatted domain names that were held to be infringing?
What arguments were made by the respondents in defense of their typosquatting activities and how were they met by the panel?
What factors other than evidence of commercial gain derived from the typosquatting activity are considered by the panel to be indicative of bad faith in the use of the existing trademark?


Facebook Twitter RSS