nternational us law

Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP), October 24, 1999
Applicable Disputes. You are required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that a third party (a "complainant") asserts to the applicable Provider, in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, that
(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), Signed by President Clinton, November 29, 1999
A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section, if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person --
(i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section; and...
In a case involving a violation of section 43(d)(1), the plaintiff may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered by the trial court, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages in the amount of not less than $1,000 and not more than $100,000 per domain name, as the court considers just.
Truth in Domain Names Act, 2003
Sec. 2252B. False or misleading domain names on the Internet
(a) Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name with the intent to deceive a person into viewing obscenity on the Internet shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
(b) Whoever knowingly uses a misleading domain name with the intent to deceive a minor into viewing material that is harmful to minors on the Internet shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 4 years, or both. Search decisions
http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrpdec.htm
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/search/ Some selected decisionsIn the case of , the Respondent has deliberately added to the Complainant’s mark the prefix “www-”, which is, as the Complainant contends, a commonly used typosquatting method, making the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the mark in which the Complainant has rights. This finding is supported by the fact that there is a phonetic similarity between the disputed domain name and the official website of the Complainant. The Panel notes the decisions in several cases under the Policy in which adding the prefix “www-” to a complainant’s mark was condemned as typosquatting In the case of , an extraneous letter K has been added to the beginning of the mark, K being the letter immediately to the right of J on a standard keyboard. This kind of misspelling takes advantage of the proximity of two letters on the keyboard and creates, as the Complainant contends, confusing similarity with the mark. The Complainant’s mark is not descriptive but is highly distinctive. As other Panels have decided under the Policy (see Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0441), a domain name which differs by only one letter from a trademark has a greater tendency to be confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that there is a confusing similarity between the Complainant’s mark and the disputed domain name . The parking of a domain name by itself does not necessarily represent evidence of bad faith registration and use of the domain name. However, the display of the unsolicited pop-up advertisements for a variety of goods and services on the disputed domain names sites may represent evidence of bad faith in the sense of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy if the Respondent benefits financially from it.
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0787.html nov 2004 Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
Complainant has established its rights to the mark that is contained in its entirety in the domain name registered by Respondent. Although not identical, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. The mere removal of the letter “s” does not change the overall impression created by this domain name; it creates a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark. See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. HarperStephens, D2000-0716 (WIPO Sept. 5, 2000) (finding that deleting the letter “s” from the Complainant’s UNIVERSAL STUDIOS STORE mark does not change the overall impression of the mark and thus makes it confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark); see also V Secret Catalog, Inc. v. Internet Inv. Firm Trust “In Trust”, FA 94344 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 9, 2000) (finding that the omission of the possessive “s” from the VICTORIA’S SECRET mark in the disputed domain name did not defeat confusing similarity). (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
Further, in directing users away from Complainant’s website, Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name did not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services within the definition of the Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). See Ticketmaster Corp. v. DiscoverNet, Inc., D2001-0252 (WIPO Apr. 9, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent generated commercial gain by intentionally and misleadingly diverting users away from the Complainant's site to a competing website); see also Société des Bains de Mer v. International Lotteries, D2000-1326 (WIPO Jan. 8, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where Respondent used the casinomontecarlo.com and montecarlocasinos.com domain names in connection with an unaffiliated online gambling website
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Moreover, “typosquatting,” the practice of registering similar but inaccurate domain names, has been recognized as a bad faith use of a domain name under the Policy. See, e.g., AltaVista Co. v. Stoneybrook, D2000-0886 (WIPO Oct. 26, 2000) (awarding “wwwalavista.com”, among other misspellings of altavista.com, to Complainant); see also Dow Jones & Co. & Dow Jones, L.P. v. Powerclick, Inc., D2000-1259 (WIPO Dec. 1, 2000) (awarding domain names “wwwdowjones.com”, “wwwwsj.com”, “wwwbarrons.com” and “wwwbarronsmag.com” to Complainants).
Dec 2001 http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/101161.htmhttp://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/101161.htm

It is clear that, in fact, the Respondents are endeavouring to "typosquat" Pfizer’s main domain name , assuming that users will neglect
arbiter.wipo.int/domains/ decisions/html/2001/d2001-1199.html
The wwwcnn.com domain name incorporates CNN’s famous CNN mark in full, and is an obvious attempt to "typosquat"
www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/96282.htm
http://domibot.info/wipo/d2005-0567.html
with very good other references and if you thought you were the one having problems read these fora
http://www.dnforum.com/f235/