In summary, WIPO says that the registration of a domain with a minor variation of an established domain name or trademark is, prima facie, assumed to be a deliberate registration in order to capture innocent visitors who accidentally mis-type their intended destination URL.

Nine domains were in dispute: natghtyamerica.com, naughtyameriaca.com, naughtyamerixa.com, naughtyameroca.com, naughtyarmerica.com, nauhhtyamerica.com, nauthtyamerica.com, nnaughtyamerica.com and nuughtyamerica.com. All are registered with Above.com, Inc.

The following is extracted from the WIPO Judgment:

The Panel concluded that all the disputed domain names are owned by the Respondent, as the WhoIs information for the disputed domain names, the information provided by the Complainant and the registrant details confirmed by the registrar are identical to this entity. The case will accordingly be treated as having one and the same Respondent.

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following:

(i) that the Respondent’s domain names is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and

(iii) that the disputed domain name have been registered and are being used in bad faith.

The relevant parts of the disputed domain names are “natghtyamerica”, “naughtyameriaca”, “naughtyamerixa”, “naughtyameroca”, “naughtyarmerica”, “nauhhtyamerica”, “nauthtyamerica”, “nnaughtyamerica”, and “nuughtyamerica” as the addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain names from the Complainant’s mark.

The Respondent’s disputed domain names each contain a misspelled version of the Complainant’s mark and in each case vary the correct spelling by adding, removing or substituting only one letter. Altering a mark by only one letter is not enough to escape a finding of similarity; see Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Caribbean Online International Ltd., [“adding or removing letters to a domain name is not sufficient to escape the finding of similarity and does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark of [c]omplainant”];

Accordingly, the Panel finds that all the disputed domain names are at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and that the Complainant has proved the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

The Complainant’s assertions and evidence submitted with the Complaint, indicating that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, is sufficient to establish a prima facie case under the Policy.

Once a prima facie case has been established, the burden shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,(holding that, “where [the] complainant has asserted that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name, it is incumbent on the respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion [because t]his information is uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”).

The Respondent has apparently no rights to use the Complainant’s trademark, and is not an authorized agent or licensee of the Complainant’s products, services or trademarks.

By not submitting a response, the Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names.

As shown by the Annexes to the Complaint, the Respondent has used the disputed domain names for websites that are in connection with pay-per-click (“PPC”) landing pages providing links to third-party websites offering, inter alia, adult entertainment in competition with the Complainant.

As established in a number of UDRP cases under similar circumstances, such use cannot constitute a bona fide use of the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, see Chanel, Inc. v. Cologne Zone, (“Bona fide use does not exist when the intended use is [a] deliberate infringement of another’s rights”).

Typosquatting occurs when a respondent purposefully includes typographical errors in the mark portion of a disputed domain name to divert Internet users who make those typographical errors. In this case, all the disputed domain names take advantage of Internet users who mistype the Complainant’s NAUGHTY AMERICA trademark. The Panel concludes that the Respondent’s engagement in typosquatting is further evidence that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in any of the disputed domain names.

The Complainant is based in the United States of America and, although the website connected with the trademark NAUGHTY AMERICA is used by people worldwide, has not claimed any registered trademark rights outside the United States of America. The Respondent is based in Australia and the United Kingdom.

However, the further circumstances are - collectively - clear indications that the Respondent registered all the disputed domain names with knowledge of the Complainant’s registered trademark NAUGHTY AMERICA.

The Panel has no reason to question the Complainant’s assertions that the NAUGHTY AMERICA trademark is well-known among the relevant public in many countries, including the United Kingdom and Australia. According to the independent statistics from “www.alexa.com”, 5.3% of the visitors to Complainant’s website are from the United Kingdom and 1.4% from Australia respectively.

The fact that the Respondent has registered no less than 9 domain names almost identical to the Complainant’s trademark is a clear indication of the Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainants trademark rights.

The Panel finds that all the disputed domain names are capable of creating a likelihood of confusion as to the Complainant’s affiliation with the disputed domain names and corresponding websites, and that this likelihood of confusion is deliberately created by the Respondent – thus acting in bad faith.

The Panel also finds that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names to display hyperlinks to various third-party websites, including some in direct competition with the Complainant, constitutes disruption under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy and is thus evidence of bad faith registration and use. See EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns and Matt Oettinger, (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name eebay.com in bad faith where the respondent has used the domain name to promote competing auction sites).

As argued by the Complainant, the Panel agrees that the fact that the Respondent is currently attempting to auction four of the disputed domain names to the highest bidder on Sedo.com, further demonstrate the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names.

The Complainant points to the fact that the Respondent is well-known as a typosquatter, having been a respondent in a number of other UDRP proceedings, wherein the domain names were ordered to be transferred from the Respondent to the respective complainants in those cases. The Panel finds that the Respondent has therefore engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use under the parameters of paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy. See Westcoast Contempo Fashions Limited v. Manila Industries, Inc., NAF Claim No. 814312 (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy where the respondent had been the subject of numerous UDRP proceedings where panels ordered the transfer of disputed domain names containing the trademarks of the complainants).

The Complainant states that the Respondent’s use of a privacy service to conceal its identity is also evidence of bad faith. In this Panel’s view, however, the use of a privacy service as such does not indicate any bad faith registration or use. There may be many legitimate reasons for hiding the identity of the domain name holder, such as avoiding spam. Bad faith is only indicated when such use is connected with the registration and use of infringing domain names, such as in this present case.

The Panel concludes that all the domain names were both registered and used in bad faith.

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names natghtyamerica.com, naughtyameriaca.com, naughtyamerixa.com, naughtyameroca.com, naughtyarmerica.com, nauhhtyamerica.com, nauthtyamerica.com, nnaughtyamerica.com and nuughtyamerica.com be transferred to the Complainant.

Source: World Intellectual Property Organisation La Touraine, Inc. v. Above.com Domain Privacy / Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host Master Case No. D2010-1118