Dello Russo, she may not take advantage of Complainant’s own valid interest in its mark. Complainant thus cites the “initial interest confusion” line of cases discussed below.
...The Court of Appeals noted that any initial interest confusion of consumers was actionable in that case because the confusion might very well have effected the purchase decision. ...
2007-05-15 - Case Details
But even if the use of links to charities could be viewed as an invitation to an Internet user to donate to one or more of these charities, there is no evidence that Respondent would profit from or commercially gain by such donations.
B. American Doctrine Of Initial Interest Confusion
1. The doctrine of initial interest confusion involves a commercial transaction.
...However, initially he thought that by exiting at Exit 7, he would find a Walgreen’s drugstore from whom he could purchase the aspirin. Under the American doctrine of initial interest confusion, CVS Pharmacy would be profiting from the initial interest confusion resulting from the driver searching for the Walgreen’s outlet. ...
2013-05-13 - Case Details
Even if a contrary signal such as “sucks” is appended to a trademark in a domain name, there will be some element of initial interest confusion as Internet users attempt to figure out the puzzle of the connection. A fair use analysis must go beyond the question of “initial interest confusion”.
...In the circumstances of the specific use by Respondent, an Internet user would be subject to initial interest confusion, but that confusion would dissipate as soon as the user reached Respondent’s website. ...
2007-09-20 - Case Details
The Panel
notes that the vast majority of criticism site cases decided to date under this
“initial interest confusion approach” involve domain names that
are identical to the trademark in issue.
...The Panel is not suggesting that the concept of the
initial interest confusion has no place in the Paragraph 4(c)(iii) analysis,
which as noted above, seeks to balance the bona fide rights of trademark
owners with the public’s interest in the use of domain names to facilitate
freedom of expression. ...
2005-02-11 - Case Details
But, in other cases, a United States court may find that the initial interest confusion caused by an impersonating domain name is sufficiently problematic to constitute trademark infringement. ...As these cases show, a court in the United States considering whether a finding of initial interest confusion constitutes a violation of the Lanham Act would need to weigh a number of fact-dependent considerations, such as whether the website is clear about the source of the commentary, whether it takes too long to clear up the initial interest confusion, whether the defendant misappropriated the defendant’s goodwill through the initial interest confusion, whether the criticism is truly genuine, whether the registrant’s use is a fair use, and in whose favor each of the likelihood of confusion factors weighs. ...
2019-06-11 - Case Details
The dissenting panelist reasoned
that use by respondent of the domain name in conjunction
with the offer of genuine Mercedes parts caused initial interest confusion as
well as confusion as to source, sponsorship and affiliation.
In Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ...As such, the initial interest confusion generated by the website residing at
the disputed domain name supports a finding of bad faith under the Policy.
...
2005-02-25 - Case Details
Moreover, even if non-commercial use is contemplated, reliance upon initial interest confusion to divert Internet users is not a bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name. ...The Complainant asserts that the Respondent will create initial interest confusion concerning its sponsorship or endorsement of the Respondent’s website, and that creating such confusion for purposes of commercial gain precludes the establishment of a fair use defense. ...
2003-08-07 - Case Details
However, Respondent asserts that his disclaimer is sufficient to dispel any confusion and defeat Complainant’s allegations of bad faith.
The use of a disclaimer by Respondent is not sufficient to create a defense to bad faith under Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, because of initial interest confusion. The Respondent's website and repeated use of Complainant's trademark in his website create a likelihood of initial interest confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Complainant's website. ...
2002-04-03 - Case Details
In support of this assertion, Complainant argues, in part, that the Domain Name was registered to create initial interest confusion among consumers, attracting people to the Domain Name instead of to the Oki Data web site, and that Respondent's use of the OKIDATA mark in its domain name without a license or other authority is evidence of bad faith in itself.
...As for Complainant's assertion that the domain name causes “initial interest confusion,” the Panel concludes that there can be no such “initial interest confusion” where the Respondent's use of the domain name is, itself, legitimate under the Policy.
7. ...
2001-11-08 - Case Details
However, while those disclaimers may well be effective in disabusing internet users of an confusion once they arrive at Respondent’s site, they clearly do not offset the obvious risk of so-called ‘initial interest confusion’. ...The question that therefore arises is whether Respondent has a legitimate interest in using a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s trade marks in circumstances that are very likely to give rise to initial interest confusion, even though it may be selling Complainant’s legitimately trade marked goods at the site and any such confusion is likely to be dispelled once internet users arrive at the site because of its disclaimers? ...
2007-08-17 - Case Details
In so doing, this Panel follows the rationale of the “initial interest confusion” doctrine, as View 1 has occasionally been referred to in the courts. As stated in the Dello Russo case (Joseph Dello Russo M.D. v. ...Finally, it must be taken into account that the Respondent has not filed any Response in these proceedings.
Besides the initial interest confusion caused by the disputed domain name, the Respondent’s prominent use of the Complainant’s company name in the title DIE AGAPLESION AG might cause additional confusion among Internet users looking for the Complainant. ...
2013-03-08 - Case Details
Should the products sold in the website to which the disputed domain name was redirecting Internet users be genuine products, legitimately acquired by the Respondent, the question that would arise is whether the Respondent would therefore have a legitimate interest in using a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark in circumstances that are likely to give rise to initial interest confusion.
...When there is no authorisation, the combination of an identical/confusingly similar trademark in a domain name together with the likelihood of initial interest confusion alone ought to be sufficient to demonstrate that Respondent has no legitimate interest. ...
2013-06-20 - Case Details
No-one might ultimately be confused, but, through trickery, the perpetrator of the initial interest confusion has obtained access to an audience that he or she would not otherwise have reached.)
...Having regard to that balance, and to the negative consequences which can flow from the creation of initial interest confusion, the condition that the registrant's use of the domain name must be “fair”, or “legitimate”, should be firmly enforced. ...
2009-04-17 - Case Details
D2003-0166, and
especially well in the recently decided Howard Jarvis and Covance
cases cited above. I will discuss in this opinion only the "initial
interest confusion" that is the touchstone of the second line of cases,
for it is that principle that leads me to sustain the Complaint here.
...By intentionally selecting Complainant's mark to present his views, he has not made a legitimate use of the domain names.
I consider initial interest confusion is certain in this case, as the Disputed Domain Names are identical to Complainant's mark. ...
2004-06-08 - Case Details
This is true whether these efforts consist of an attempt to capitalize on initial interest confusion or are accomplished through “cash parking”. Respondent is guilty of both. Respondent is capitalizing on the initial confusion of users who are looking for information about Dave Bautista, and who instead are directed to other websites, as determined by Respondent’s cash parking service. ...This effort reflects an attempt to capitalize on initial interest confusion in relation to Complainant’s name and common law mark, for Respondent’s own financial gain. ...
2016-05-06 - Case Details
The initial interest confusion theory has application only where one’s business use of another’s mark is for its own commercial gain. Profiting financially from initial interest confusion is a key element for imposition of liability under the initial interest confusion theory. ...
2005-12-08 - Case Details
The use of a disclaimer
by Respondents is not sufficient to dispel the likelihood of initial interest
confusion by an Internet user. The Respondent’s Domain Name uses the MERCEDES
trademark in the title of the Domain Name which resolves to Respondent’s website.
...Given the initial interest
confusion created by Respondent’s use of Complainant’s trademark, I would find
that Respondent’s use of the Domain Name does not constitute fair use or the
bona fide offering of goods and services, and thus does not satisfy the criteria
of paragraph 4(c)(i). ...
2001-07-11 - Case Details
Moreover, as noted previously, the registration and use of the disputed domain name creates a form of initial interest confusion, which attracts Internet users to the disputed domain name based on the use of the MARLBORO Trademarks. ...Registerfly.com,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0461 (referencing initial interest confusion in the panel’s finding of bad faith registration and use).
This conclusion of bad faith is bolstered by the fact that the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website. ...
2015-04-23 - Case Details
Finally, while Respondent submits that there is no evidence of initial interest confusion by relying on printouts from a Google search, Complainant provides a search from the Bing search engine, which shows that Respondent’s website appears when searching for “Percocet”, suggesting that initial interest confusion is likely (e.g., Respondent’s website appears fifth in the search results).
...Respondent also contends there is no evidence of initial interest confusion. The theory of initial interest confusion is whether members of the public are confused for even a moment as to the source of the website to which the Domain Name resolves. ...
2016-01-11 - Case Details
Moreover, in addition to the traditional likelihood of confusion the Complainant argues that the disputed domain names create a form of initial interest confusion, which attracts Internet users to the disputed domain names based on the Trademarks. ...Moreover, the Complainant also in this respect contends that the registration and use of the disputed domain names creates a form of initial interest confusion. According to the Complainant the conclusion of bad faith is bolstered by the fact that the disputed domain names resolve to inactive websites. ...
2014-12-31 - Case Details