According to Complainant it registered the disputed domain name in May 2005, since which time it has been used as a pay-per-click page, with hyperlinks to many products, including those of Complainant.
whereas your contention - please correct me if I'm wrong - is that not only the UDRP but also the Respondent defeat is inevitable, precisely because of that particular domain name.
From the panel's findings (among others):
a) "The Disputed Domain Name ... does not resolve to an active website."
b) "Respondent is engaged in passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name."
c) "the failure of Respondent to submit a response or provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use."
These circumstances were substantial in justifying the panel's decision.
Which means, you can't be sure that with different circumstances the panel would had taken the same decision.
What if Respondent had put up a website selling Lstagrarn bananas?
What if Respondent had put on sale that domain?
What if Respondent had taken the time to submit a response?
Your pinpointing the reason for the decision only on the domain name - leaving aside those circumstances - is arbitrary.
Your definition of twiiter as typo squatting irrespective of how the Registrant uses it, is arbitrary.
You can't rule out the chance that if that Respondent had put up some non-Instagram related website, and/or put the domain on sale, and/or taken the time to respond (among others) maybe he could win that case.
In registering Lnstagrarn or twiiter neither a URDP nor a Registrant's defeat are inevitable.
It depends on the circumstances i.e. on the Registrant's usage of that domain.