"Clearly, there must be a risk of confusion arising out of typographical errors, and such errors are plainly at the heart of the instances revealed by the Yahoo search conducted by the Complainant [Volvo]. But, to rely on this single search in support of the assertion "Instances of confusion are rampant" is going too far.
Also unhelpful is the Complainant's reliance on other WIPO decisions, each one of which depended on its own facts, and in each of which the Trademark itself featured in the domain name at issue.
The Panel concludes that the Respondent [Volo Auto Museum] has rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, falling within the circumstances of Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. Clearly, the Respondent has acquired "rights" in the name VOLOCARS as a result of its trading activities (regardless of the Complainant's rights in the Trademark, the Respondent could restrain others, in appropriate circumstances, from trading under the name VOLOCARS).
Here, the Respondent has placed before the Panel ample evidence that it has acted in good faith. Its business in antique and classic cars does not, in the Panel's opinion, stand to benefit in any way from association with the Complainant. It is equally clear that the Respondent has not been motivated by any desire to damage the Complainant."