The Complainant contends that this is a form of “initial interest confusion” which unlawfully diverts traffic by capitalising on the Complainant’s goodwill in the SWAROVSKI marks.
...In addition, the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name creates “initial interest confusion”, which results in Internet users being attracted to the website because of its purported affiliation with the Complainant.
...
2012-08-09 - Case Details
The addition of Complainant's principal products to the disputed domain names makes consumer confusion even more likely than a simple copying. Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
B. ...Respondent's contention that he gained a right or legitimate interest by subsequently incorporating a company named CarCoverUSA, Inc. misses the point. The issue is rather Respondent's right or legitimate interest in using a term that relates to Complainant's mark as the dominant feature of the disputed domain names.
...
2010-04-30 - Case Details
Thus,
the Respondent’s knowledge and intention cannot be proven on these grounds.
As for likelihood of confusion (through diversion of Internet traffic to the
Respondent’s websites), this Panel follows the "initial interest confusion"
doctrine applied against the same Respondent in the Sony Ericsson case:
"The confusion caused by the Respondent is "initial interest confusion"
and the Panel does not believe that Internet users who have visited the Respondent’s
site would be likely to be confused into believing that it was the Complainants’
site. In the view of the Panel, however, and in line with other decided "typosquatting"
cases under the Policy, the deliberate creation of initial interest confusion
and the consequent diversion of Internet traffic is sufficient to establish
bad faith on the Respondent’s part." ...
2003-06-18 - Case Details
”
- Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because it “comprises of a well-known and famous trademark REDIFF as well as the Complainant[‘]s service name REDIFF BOL,” “Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name or REDIFF or REDIFF BOL,” “on accessing the website to which the impugned domain name resolves, pop-up advertisements appear,” and “[t]he Respondent's website is not bona fide since the Respondent is trading on the fame and recognition of the Complainant's well-known trademark in order to cause initial interest confusion.”
- The Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith because the registration “is nothing but an opportunistic bad faith registration on the part of the Respondent,” “[i]t is apparent that the Respondent has attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to the website to which the impugned domain name resolves to by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants well-known and famous trademark REDIFF,” “there is a great likelihood that actual or potential unwary visitors to the Respondent's present web page or any future web page that is resolved to this disputed domain name[], will be induced to [among other things]… believe that the website to which the impugned domain name resolves to is affiliated to the Complainant or that it is the commercial arm of the Complainants Chat Service, REDIFF BOL.”
...Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name because it “comprises of a well-known and famous trademark REDIFF as well as the Complainant[‘]s service name REDIFF BOL,” “Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name or REDIFF or REDIFF BOL,” “on accessing the website to which the impugned domain name resolves, pop-up advertisements appear,” and “[t]he Respondent's website is not bona fide since the Respondent is trading on the fame and recognition of the Complainant's well-known trademark in order to cause initial interest confusion.”
Under the Policy, a complainant is required to make out a “prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. ...
2008-09-05 - Case Details
UDRP panels have consistently held that under the "initial interest" doctrine, not only does the incorporation of a trademark in the registration of a domain name fall outside the safe harbor of paragraph 4(c)(iii), it also constitutes a bad faith intention to divert traffic within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii). ...Foyle's Books Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2000-1544 ("'Initial source confusion' or 'initial interest confusion' may bolster a finding of bad faith under the Policy where respondent's purpose in incorporating a mark in a domain name is to disrupt or misappropriate the trademark owner's business.").
...
2015-08-18 - Case Details
The Panel has also found that the disputed domain name creates an immediate potential for false association with the Complainant and a high degree of initial confusion. As a result, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.
...In light of the above, the Panel concludes that knowledge of the mark at the time of registration followed by use in commerce without a legitimate interest and likely to create confusion (and thus allow the Respondent to free-ride on the Complainant’s goodwill), is the proper test”. ...
2007-09-07 - Case Details
The Complainant points out that the mark was well known by the time the Respondent registered the Domain Names, and the Complainant infers that the resulting “initial interest” confusion was deliberate. The Complainant argues that using the Domain Names to attract customers to websites selling other products, some of them competing with those of the Complainant, is not a fair use of the mark but rather evidence of bad faith.
...It is a fair and unrefuted inference here that the Respondent intended to attract
Internet users by employing the Complainant’s mark in the Domain Names
and creating initial interest confusion as to the sponsorship of the websites
to which the Domain Names resolve. This constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv)
of the Policy. ...
2005-11-01 - Case Details
Factual Background
For more than 100 years, through a predecessor in interest, ABC states that
it has been engaged in the fine carpet and home furnishings business. Complainant,
through its predecessor in interest, claims use of the mark ABC in connection
with offering its retail services since 1897. ...The parties appear to have exchanged telephone
messages after this initial call, but ABC characterizes the exchange as an initial
eagerness on Mr. Boltz’s part to return ABC’s first call. ...
2001-06-05 - Case Details
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The inference which the Panel can reasonably draw from the circumstances surrounding the registration and use of the disputed domain name is that the Respondent deliberately created the domain name with the intention of diverting Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of initial confusion with the Complainant’s mark. This practice is commonly referred to as creating initial Internet confusion.
...This Panel agrees with the view that initial interest confusion, when coupled with sufficient evidence of intention or deliberate creation, can give rise to bad faith.
...
2007-05-30 - Case Details
The Complainant argues that the requisite connection and damage will be caused by “initial interest confusion”. “Initial interest confusion” is a doctrine that was developed in the United States of America and has now been accepted in some other jurisdictions, such as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. ...An intentional attempt to attract users to a website by creating a likelihood of confusion as to source or affiliation is effectively what is meant by “initial interest confusion.” In the case of a well known mark, there is a greater likelihood of confusion as to source or affiliation. ...
2012-09-28 - Case Details
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds there is no evidence in the record to indicate that Respondent is associated or affiliated with Complainant or that Respondent has any other rights or legitimate interest in the term “Dr. Martens”. A complainant is required to make out an initial prima facie case that respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. ...Where the Respondent chooses to incorporate a well known mark into a domain name without authorization, “the combination of an identical trademark in a domain name and the ensuing likelihood of initial interest confusion alone ought to be sufficient to demonstrate that Respondent has no legitimate interest in this case.” ...
2014-06-16 - Case Details
The Respondent registered the Domain Name on or about May 7, 2002.
The exact date of initial use of the Domain Name is not provided by the Complainant, though it is inferred that initial use by the Respondent commenced on or around May 7, 2002. ...It is said that such consumers are likely to suffer confusion, having concluded that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ "ATA" mark. ...
2004-03-29 - Case Details
Nevertheless, even if the Respondent intends only a noncommercial4
use of the disputed domain name, attracting Internet users to a website by creating
initial interest confusion is not legitimate or fair use of the domain name,
when no effort is made to dispel this initial confusion and the website does
not reflect any “fair use” of the domain name. ...The Respondent has used the domain name to
divert Internet users to a website the appearance of which not only creates
initial interest confusion regarding the Complainant’s affiliation with
or sponsorship of the website, but does nothing to dispel the appearance of
such an affiliation or sponsorship. ...
2004-11-05 - Case Details
The confusion caused by the Respondent could be described as ‘initial
interest confusion’ and in this regard the Panel was referred to Sony
Ericsson Mobile Communications International AB, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson,
Sony Corporation v. ...In the view of the Panel, however … the deliberate creation of initial
interest confusion and the consequent diversion of Internet traffic is sufficient
to establish bad faith on the Respondent’s part.”
...
2004-07-08 - Case Details
Respondent denies that use of the Domain Name for his website is likely to cause confusion with Complainant’s marks, and offers to includes a disclaimer of affiliation with Complainant. ...Identity
The Domain Name specifically includes CBS, for which the Complainant has a longstanding and world famous service mark, and combines those letters with a word describing an activity that Complainant regularly undertakes in its business and for which it is well known. The likelihood of confusion is obvious. 3
B. Legitimate Interest
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use any of its marks in any manner, including use in the Domain Name. ...
2000-12-14 - Case Details
The present case involves the deliberate diversion
of internet users who intend to access the Complainants’ website and the taking
of unfair advantage of the Complainants’ goodwill. The confusion caused by the
Respondent is "initial interest confusion" and the Panel does not
believe that internet users who have visited the Respondent’s site would be
likely to be confused into believing that it was the Complainants’ site. In
the view of the Panel, however, and in line with other decided "typosquatting"
cases under the Policy, the deliberate creation of initial interest confusion
and the consequent diversion of internet traffic is sufficient to establish
bad faith on the Respondent’s part.
...
2003-02-06 - Case Details
Bosman, D99-0001 the Respondent has a legitimate interest in respect of the domain name. The name itself was not registered in bad faith and is being used to promote a legitimate business interest. ...iii) If having knowledge of a proprietary right, title, or interest in a trademark, one acts in a manner that causes that right, title, or interest to be taken away, diminished, damaged, or in some way rendered less useful, then the elements of bad faith are present. ...
2001-04-05 - Case Details
Towns
Sole Panelist
Dated: July 29, 2005
1 “Initial interest
confusion” occurs when a member of the public sees the disputed domain name
and thinks that it may lead to a website associated with the complainant. ...D2004-0206. Mr. Perry’s experience is an example of initial
interest confusion....
2005-08-16 - Case Details
This is typically explained by UDRP panels with reference to the probability of Internet user "initial interest confusion" - by the time such user reaches and reads any disclaimer under the domain name, any registrant objective of attracting visitors for financial advantage to its website through use of the trademark in the domain name will generally have been achieved. ...However a disclaimer, especially if it is sufficiently clear and prominent, may sometimes be found to support other factors indicating good faith or legitimate interest" (Relevant decisions omitted).
Here, the disclaimer is not set out in a manner that makes it "sufficiently clear and prominent" so as to overcome the "initial interest confusion" engendered by the adoption and use of the Disputed Domain Name. ...
2012-03-28 - Case Details
It is clear from Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name that Respondent’s sole intent is to attract visitors to the website based on initial-interest confusion with Complainant’s well-known KIMLEY-HORN Mark for Respondent’s own financial gain. ...It is clear from Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name that Respondent’s sole intent is to attract visitors to the website based on initial-interest confusion with Complainant’s well-known KIMLEY-HORN Mark for Respondent’s own financial gain. ...
2021-10-11 - Case Details