To support its contention, the Complainant asserts that the initial use of the disputed domain name as a “portal website” to generate pay-per-click revenue was not a bona fide offering. ...Moreover, the Panel also does not consider that the Respondent has a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as he is not using it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. ...
2012-04-10 - Case Details
They are therefore confusingly similar, by at the least creating initial interest confusion, to the Complainant’s registered trademarks SWAROVSKI.
No rights or legitimate interests
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has not been known by the disputed domain names and the Respondent has no connection with the Complainant or any of its affiliates.
...Swarovski company started in 1908, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2011.
2. The Respondent is not creating initial interest confusion. The websites at the disputed domain names sell different types of jewellery, among them, the resale of SWAROVSKI products. ...
2012-04-19 - Case Details
Based on the Complainant’s clear rights to the ZYNGA mark and the public’s overwhelming association of the ZYNGA mark with the Complainant’s online games, the Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name is likely to cause consumer confusion and initial interest confusion. As such, the Respondent’s Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.
...In these circumstances the Panel finds that the Respondent is using the Domain Name in a manner that is liable to cause “initial interest confusion”, i.e., that Internet users will be drawn to the Respondent’s site in the expectation that it is a website operated or authorised by, or in some way affiliated with, the Complainant. ...
2011-04-06 - Case Details
Registration and use of the disputed domain name also creates a form of initial interest confusion, which attracts Internet users to the disputed domain name based on the MARLBORO trademarks. ...Hackard & Holt,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0838 (finding initial interest confusion where the complainant's mark was used in its entirety in a domain name pointing to the website of a law firm specializing in suing companies in complainant's industry).
2. ...
2014-11-13 - Case Details
The inevitable consequence is that there will be initial interest confusion. A substantial proportion of Internet users visiting the site will be doing so in the hope and expectation of reaching a site of (or authorized by) the trade mark owner. ...Where, as here, the intentions of the Respondent are evidently to cause initial interest confusion and to exploit that confusion to express the Respondent’s views of the trade mark owner (whether negative or positive), the Panel is clear that such a use of a domain name cannot be anything other than abusive. ...
2008-06-05 - Case Details
Thus, the Respondent's use of the domain name is in bad faith. Even if consumer confusion is dispelled prior to purchase of services and/or products offered through the Respondent’s website, Microsoft is harmed by the initial interest confusion created by the Respondent. Brookfield Communications, supra, 174 F. 3d at 1062-63 (initial interest confusion causes a sufficient trademark injury even though no actual sale is consummated)...
2002-10-14 - Case Details
However, any order directed to the Registrar will, in the interest of avoiding confusion, refer only to the Complainant Starwood, the party that makes use of each of the marks on which the Complaint is grounded.
...Thus, the addition of these descriptive geographic terms is not distinctive and increases rather than diminishes the likelihood of confusion as to source.
The Domain Names are less similar to the other trademarks listed by the Complainants, but there remains a likelihood of confusion, especially with the mark THE ST. ...
2007-11-06 - Case Details
Respondent is taking advantage of Internet users’ “initial interest confusion” for its own commercial advantage. Complainant contends such activities are illegal because Respondent is capitalizing wrongfully on Complainant’s goodwill in its BLUE APRON mark for the purpose of diverting Internet traffic to Respondent’s website.
...As discussed above, in addition to traditional likelihood of confusion, Respondent’s use of the Domain Name also creates initial interest confusion, which attracts Internet users to Respondent’s site based on Respondent’s use of the BLUE APRON mark, and is further evidence of Respondent’s bad faith use of the Domain Name.
...
2017-07-21 - Case Details
However, fortunately for the Complainant, the absence of evidence of actual confusion does not prevent the Panel from making an assessment of likelihood of confusion whether by way of initial interest confusion or otherwise. Initial interest confusion is a well-recognised phenomenon and which is, in the view of the Panel, inherently likely given the close similarity of the names.
...
2005-02-23 - Case Details
Long, whom he emailed on November 11, 2005 seeking Iberostar updates claiming that “our members” are “true Iberostar supporters and repeat customers”. Despite an initial response expressing some interest, the Complainant did not provide the Respondent with information about new initiatives.
...After receiving a negative or no response to his initial enquiry, the Complainant indicated in his email of November 7, 2005 that he was disappointed at the Complainant’s lack of interest in keeping him updated and that “As before, we will continue getting Iberostar related news from other sources”.
...
2011-09-01 - Case Details
The business was developed by its founders in early 1994, and adopted the YAHOO! mark later that same year. Complainant’s initial public offer occurred in April 1996, and it currently has a market capitalization of about $75 billion.
...It further contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain names. Finally, Complainant contends that Respondent obtained and used the disputed domain names to resell them for profit and, in the case of yahooflorida.com, to disrupt the business of a competitor and to attract traffic to Respondent’s site for commercial gain due to confusion with Complainant’s mark.
...
2000-11-16 - Case Details
The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to attempt to impersonate the Complainant or imply
sponsorship or endorsement of the Respondent by the Complainant, cannot constitute a bona fide offering of
goods and services.
There is a likelihood of “initial interest confusion”; that the website associated with the disputed domain
name is confusing and that a lack of any disclaimer increases the potential for confusion. ...Given that the disputed domain name
prominently incorporates the Complainant’s VUSE Trademarks, “initial interest confusion” is inevitable. The
adornment “shop” does nothing to dispel any confusion but increases the likelihood for confusion as it falsely
implies that the disputed domain name could be the official Complainant’s VUSE web shop. ...
2026-01-30 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Name creates initial confusion as to source or affiliation, even if that confusion is subsequently dispelled when an Internet user views the website and finds that it is critical of the Complainant.
...In such cases, the possibility of initial interest confusion does not automatically negate the Respondent's rights or legitimate interests and compel a finding of bad faith. ...
2014-12-18 - Case Details
This first leg of Complainant’s burden under Paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy is
satisfied.
ii. Respondents’ Rights or Legitimate Interest in the Domain Name
Respondents in their e-mails of November 22, 2001, state that Respondent Microrobot
Co. ...Ltd., had received two demand letters with deadlines from Complainant’s counsel,
together with follow up e-mails. The initial reaction of these Respondents was
to identify their client for the Domain Name as Microrobot Corporation "a
pioneer manufacturing company of robots in Korea". ...
2002-08-26 - Case Details
The Panel further finds that the point of confusion of Internet visitors is likely to occur at the time of seeing any of the disputed domain names appear in search results or elsewhere and before visiting the website, constituting initial interest confusion. The disclaimer on the Respondent’s website, even if it had been prominently displayed at the head of the page in large type, would not have negated initial interest confusion.
The Panel is satisfied on the evidence and on the balance of probabilities that the disputed domain names were registered specifically for the purpose for which they have been used. ...
2014-03-03 - Case Details
The Complainant has also registered “fxcm” as the initial element of many other domain names. The Complainant also offers a mobile app.
The Respondent is an individual resident in China.
...The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant’s FXCM mark as its initial element. It also incorporates the letters “hk”, which are an abbreviation of “Hong Kong”, China, and are a geographical element. ...
2021-01-05 - Case Details
It is now universally accepted by panelists that for the purpose of this comparison it is appropriate to omit the generic domain suffix from the domain name. Moreover, when considering the potential for confusion it is appropriate to take into account the potential for ‘initial interest confusion’. Thus, the appropriate basis for the test is a visual comparison of the domain name with the trade mark.
...This is because trademark holders often suffer from “initial interest confusion”, where a potential visitor does not immediately reach their site after typing in a confusingly similar domain name, and is then exposed to offensive or commercial content. ...
2005-11-17 - Case Details
While
imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, imitation in domain names risks initial interest confusion, which
unfairly takes advantage of another party’s reputation (and threatens to diminish it). ...Subsequent references to the Complainant
have been more subtle and indirect, making comparisons to the Complainant’s model and republishing
media references to the Respondent as the UBER of private jet service, for example. But the problem of
initial interest confusion remains.
The Panel finds on this record that all of these disputed domain names were meant to be confusingly similar
to the UBER marks. ...
2024-11-25 - Case Details
Complainant devotes
considerable time to the argument made by certain courts that the likelihood
of confusion and bad faith may be based on "initial interest" confusion—the
use of another's trademark in a manner calculated to capture initial consumer
attention even though the consumer quickly becomes aware of the source's actual
identity and no purchase is made as a result of the confusion. ...The Panel distinguishes the possibility of confusion in this case with other
cases involving the name such as , ,
and . ...
2002-10-17 - Case Details
Further the Complainant contends that the use of a domain name to attract consumers to a website that advertises purported Swarovski products is contrary to bona fide offering of goods or services and does not represent a legitimate interest. No rights or legitimates interest can be created by using another’s trademark to falsely suggest an association with the trademark’s legitimate owner. ...The method used here of luring consumers to a website because of its purported affiliation with the Complainant demonstrated bad faith. The initial interest confusion the disputed domain name creates is a further indication of bad faith. According to the Complainant the Respondent would not be able to demonstrate good faith use, as it is impossible to conceive of any good faith use ever existing in the circumstances. ...
2013-12-03 - Case Details