Typo? CanadaDrugs.com vs. CanadaRugs.com

Online pharmacy argues “Rugs” is merely a typo of “Drugs”.

Take two of these and
fire your lawyer in the morning.

Here’s an interesting UDRP case from National Arbitration Forum.

The firm that runs CanadaDrugs.com, a popular online pharmacy, filed a complaint against the owner of CanadaRugs.com, which is a parked page featuring links for rugs.

CanadaDrugs.com tried to argue that the owner of CanadaRugs.com was typosquatting:

Complainant submits that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its website and Canada Drugs Marks and that respondent has merely removed the letter “d” from the spelling of the word “Drugs” in the Domain Name. Complainant also submits that this omission of the letter “d” constitutes typosquatting and that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in an effort to take advantage of internet users’ typographical errors. Complainant argues that this alteration is not sufficient to distinguish the Domain Name from its own domain name and registered marks.

Hmm. Did it not occur to their lawyers that “Rugs” is a word?

The links on CanadaRugs.com are clearly unrelated to drugs, but the complainant argued that the parked page was a sign of bad faith intent to profit on the “typo”.

The panelist found that the two domain names were not confusingly similar for this reason. He then considered the last two elements of the UDRP “for completeness”, finding in the respondent’s favor. But for some reason he neglected to consider reverse domain name hijacking, even though the respondent asked for it.

The kicker? CanadaRugs.com is available for purchase on Sedo for only 500 EUR.