In this case study video, I discuss a bold example of typosquatting, in which the bank Wells Fargo filed a complaint against the domain name <weiisfarg0.com> (two letters “L” in the trademark have been replaced by the letter “I,” and the letter “O” has been replaced by the numeral zero).
This is obviously not a domain name that anyone would ever actually type in the address bar of a web browser, but cybersquatters often create these so-called look-alike domain names to use in phishing scams, where they send emails to unsuspecting victims, masquerading as someone else.
As I discuss in this video, the UDRP panel easily found the domain name confusingly similar to the WELLS FARGO trademark (first used in 1852 — almost 160 years before the domain name was registered), which is always the first element under the UDRP’s three-part test. Specifically, the panel wrote:
The slight visual differences between Complainant’s trademark and the at-issue domain name does nothing to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s trademark….
And on the third element of the UDRP, bad faith, the panel first noted that the domain name was being passively held. As I discussed in another UDRP case study video, the passive holding doctrine allows for a finding bad faith even in the absence of an active website, and that alone seemed enough for the panel here. But, importantly, the panel directly addressed the unusual typosquatting issue in the domain name and explained its significance to the case – which provides another lesson for trademark owners.
Here’s what the panel wrote on the relevance of typosquatting and the bad faith element of the UDRP:
[T]he domain name shows typosquatting on its face. Typosquatting is a practice whereby a domain name registrant deliberately introduces typographical errors or misspellings into a trademark, or perhaps into a domain name or other mark related to or sponsored by the target trademark holder, and then registers the resulting string in a domain name…. The registrant then may use the confusion to inappropriately capitalize on the target trademark’s goodwill. The <weiisfarg0.com> domain name is visually similar to Complainant’s trademark and to Complainant’s actual domain name and is apt to be confused with Complainant’s trademark and Complainant’s official website when read. Typosquatting, in itself, indicates bad faith under [the UDRP].
That last line – “typosquatting, in itself, indicates bad faith under the UDRP” – is one that has been repeated many times in various forms through the years. In fact, the WIPO Overview has addressed the issue by stating that, “Panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith.”
For trademark owners, this is important, because it means that, under the right circumstances, the trickiest and most deceptive domain names registered by cybersquatters – the ones that have the potential to cause some of the biggest problems through phishing attempts or other scams targeting consumers – can be perfect candidates for the UDRP, enabling trademark owners to quickly and permanently shut down any scams associated with typosqsuatting domain names.
