"The disputed domain name clearly indicates a “typosquatting” operation. A user seeking to type in ‘GMAIL’ could easily omit one letter and end up on the Respondent’s website. The similarity between Gmail and Gmal – in the absence of any plausible explanation of the choice of name from the Respondent – invites skepticism about the Respondent’s explanations and indicates a deliberate attempt to “cash in” on Gmail’s fame. "
The Panel ordered the disputed domain name to be transferred from the respondent to the complainant.
You can read the decision here .



