## Facts

- Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. (doing business as Condé Nast Publications) owned U.S. trademark registrations for **WIRED** covering magazine and online publication services and operated the website **wired.com**.
- MSA, Inc. (with a privacy service listed in the Whois record) registered the domain **wwwwired.com**, a typographical variant of the complainant’s URL formed by adding an extra “w” to the common “www” prefix.
- The disputed domain resolved to a “parking” page displaying sponsored links, including links related to Wired magazine subscriptions and other magazine-related advertising, generating commercial revenue through referrals or pay-per-click clicks.
- The complainant filed a complaint under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center; respondents did not file a response and were declared in default.
- A three-member administrative panel was appointed to decide whether the domain should be transferred.

## Issues

1. Whether **wwwwired.com** is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s **WIRED** trademark under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(i).
2. Whether respondents have rights or legitimate interests in **wwwwired.com** under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii).
3. Whether **wwwwired.com** was registered and used in bad faith under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(iii).

## Decision

- The panel found **confusing similarity** because the domain incorporated the **WIRED** mark in full and merely added a minor, typographical variation associated with mistyping “www.”
- The panel found **no rights or legitimate interests** because respondents were not authorized to use the mark, were not commonly known by the domain name, and used the domain for a link farm/parking page that capitalized on trademark value.
- The panel found **bad-faith registration and use** because the domain was a typosquatting variant intended to divert users for commercial gain by creating likely confusion and because respondents’ conduct fit a broader pattern reflected in prior UDRP findings.
- The panel ordered **transfer** of **wwwwired.com** to the complainant.

## Legal Principles

- A domain name is confusingly similar to a mark when it **incorporates the mark in its entirety**, and minor additions or misspellings (including “www”-type variants) generally do not avoid confusion.
- Use of a disputed domain for **pay-per-click or sponsored-link parking** that trades on a complainant’s trademark generally is **not** a bona fide offering of goods or services and does not establish legitimate interests.
- **Typosquatting**—registering a misspelling or common-typing-error variant of a well-known mark to divert traffic—supports findings of both confusing similarity and bad faith.
- Bad faith is established where a respondent intentionally attracts users for **commercial gain** by creating a likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement (UDRP ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
- Evidence of a respondent’s **pattern of similar registrations** can reinforce an inference of bad faith under the UDRP.

## Conclusion

Applying the UDRP’s three-part test, the panel concluded that **wwwwired.com** was a typosquatted variant of the **WIRED** mark used to generate advertising revenue through user confusion, that respondents lacked legitimate interests, and that the registration and use were in bad faith; the domain was ordered transferred to the complainant.


Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. v. MSA, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2007-1743 (Feb. 22, 2008)