Should the products sold on the website at the disputed domain name 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.
...In fact, the disputed domain name was also used in bad faith since at the relevant website, the Respondent was offering tickets for the Complainant’s tennis tournament as well as for other tennis tournaments, taking advantage from initial interest confusion.
The above suggests to the Panel that the Respondent intentionally registered and is using the disputed domain name in order to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
...
2014-01-30 - Case Details
The disputed domain name’s composition creates initial interest confusion by giving Internet users the
impression that it will resolve to a website that provides Complainant’s services, and that it is thus authorized
or endorsed by Complainant. ...Thus, it is clear that Respondent should have
been aware of Complainant’s CANVA mark at the time of registering the disputed domain name.
Respondent relies on the initial interest confusion of the string ‘fullpackcanva’ to attract and misleadingly
divert Internet users to its own website, which UDRP decisions have repeatedly found to constitute bad faith
use.
...
2023-06-05 - Case Details
Hence, the addition of the suffix is designed to confuse the consumer, rather than alleviate the confusion.
Having come to the initial conclusion that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks, the question is then whether the Respondent’s arguments alter this position. ...The Respondent first argues that it has an Australian registered business name "TheTel’s Trash Op", and that this is sufficient to ground its claim for a legitimate interest in the domain name. This is clearly correct in the abstract: it is not necessary for a Respondent to have a registered trade mark to show a legitimate interest, and a business name can be sufficient to show rights or legitimate interest in the domain name (see Paragraph 4.c....
2001-01-30 - Case Details
Thus, Respondent cannot claim to be using the disputed domain names in a way that UDRP panels have found to create “rights or legitimate interest.” Since the panel has found that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the domain names it is unnecessary for the Panel to consider the minority view, discussed by certain cases, and Paragraph 2.3 of WIPO Overview 2.0, that without express authority, a right to resell does not create a right to use a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar. ...Lorelei Ritchie
Sole Panelist
Dated: November 18, 2011
1 Although all parties are apparently located in the United States, there is no clear overriding line of case law nationally regarding what is commonly known as “initial interest confusion.” Accordingly, it is instructive to turn to other UDRP proceedings for guidance....
2011-11-28 - Case Details
However it does appear in each case that the use is calculated to "free-ride" on and profit from the Complainant’s reputation in its mark. In the context of the Respondent's lack of interest in the domain names and the apparent commercial benefit the Respondent derives from association and confusion with the Complainant via the domain names, it seems the resolution of the domain names to such sites is solely motivated by profit. ...The Panel
does not
however
consider
it necessary
to find
any sustained
confusion
of users
as to the
Complainant’s
association
with the
sites linked
with the
domain names
after the
initial
moment of
calling
up the pages
to which
the domain
names resolve.
...
2003-08-20 - Case Details
The disclaimer displayed at the bottom of the pages on the Respondent’s website does not lessen the initial confusion of internet users seeking a website operated by the Complainant. Users will see the disclaimer (if they notice it at all) only after selecting the confusingly labeled Domain Name, and being directed to the Respondent’s website.
3. ...The Respondent’s choice of the Domain Name has thus created a likelihood of confusion between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s mark, of the kind commonly referred to as “initial interest confusion” (as found, for example, in the very recent decision of David Foox v. ...
2008-06-20 - Case Details
The Complainant
states that the Respondent is trying to imitate the Complainant with the contents of its website as well which
misleads the consumer and causes even more confusion. The Complainant concludes that the Respondent
intentionally causes initial interest confusion and intentionally attempts to attract customers to its website for
commercial gain. In the Complainant’s view, even if a visitor of the Respondent’s websites were to realize
that he or she had been redirected to another website unconnected with the Complainant, nonetheless the
initial interest confusion that lured the visitor in would also support a finding of bad faith.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. ...
2022-06-03 - Case Details
Complainant notes that Respondent's bad faith is further established by its failure to
respond to a demand letter sent by Complainant and that Respondent has used the disputed domain name
to create initial interest confusion and to attract and misdirect Internet users to Respondent's website.
B. ...As to Complainant’s claim that Respondent registered the disputed domain name to attract and redirect
Internet users to its website by creating initial interest confusion, the assertion faces two issues. First, there
is no evidence showing how well known ONTRA was when Respondent registered the disputed domain
name, thus tending to show that Respondent was perhaps using the disputed domain name to jump start his
business. ...
2025-05-30 - Case Details
Respondent consciously sought the domain name at issue to lead Internet users to its site and is probably counting on initial confusion to direct Internet users to the website. The misled Internet searcher is immediately confronted with advertising that principally has nothing to do with the Complainant, and if it should have something to do with the Complainant, is not authorized by the Complainant (See Estée Lauder Inc. v. estelauder.com, estelauder.net and Jeff Hanna,
WIPO Case No. ...Moreover, Respondent has posted content on the site that creates the impression that the site is operated by Complainant. Nothing on the site dispels the initial confusion.
Respondent and its predecessor have also advertised mobile services provided by the competitors of the Complainant. ...
2007-06-27 - Case Details
The Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services in connection with
the disputed domain name because the Respondent’s current use thereof appears intended only to drive
traffic to the website based on the creation of initial interest confusion with the Complainant’s trademark so
as to capitalize on the goodwill and notoriety associated with the trademark. ...The
Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, the Complainant’s customers to its
website and created a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source of its
website. The Respondent’s intention to create initial interest confusion is confirmed by the fact that the
disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark and virtually identical to the
Complainant’s own domain name, and was registered in a generic Top-Level Domain
(“gTLD”) directly related to the Complainant’s services, and the disputed domain name resolved to the
website that purportedly provided a directory of links to live streaming of high school sports events, which
links would either be for competitors of the Complainant or for unauthorized access to the Complainant’s
services.
...
2022-08-24 - Case Details
The Complainant asserts that the Domain Names create 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
Misdirecting Internet users to the disputed domain name takes advantage of this confusion.
This type of initial interest confusion or diversion of traffic is illegal because it wrongfully capitalizes on the Complainant’s goodwill in the SWAROVSKI Marks.
...The Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name creates “initial interest confusion”, which attracts Internet users to the Website because of its purported affiliation with the Complainant.
...
2012-10-24 - Case Details
It is the Complainant’s belief that the Respondent has registered and
is using the domain names to create a likelihood of confusion with the
Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement
of the Respondent’s website. ...It asserts that the Respondent’s registration of domain names similar
to the Complainant’s trademark constitutes "initial interest confusion".
The Respondent’s registration of the domain names in order to create initial
interest confusion weighs in favor of a finding of bad faith, as does
the Respondent’s refusal to transfer or cancel the domain names in the
face of the Complainant’s clear objection.
...
2002-07-02 - Case Details
D2005-1010, transferring , the Panel
finds that the Respondent knew that a significant proportion of Internet users
would be deceived on the basis of “initial interest confusion”.
The fact that, upon arriving at the web site and/or after a certain amount of
further investigation, some users might be disabused is to be considered irrelevant
since, by that time, the Respondent would have obtained its commercial business
opportunity, an opportunity that the Respondent might well not otherwise have
obtained had he adopted a domain name not confusingly similar to a registered
trademark.
Initial interest confusion has been discussed in prior UDRP decisions and the Panel finds that amongst all cases dealing with initial interest of Internet users, the addition of “www” as prefix of a well known registered trademark has deprived the Respondent of any right or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in issue.
...
2006-05-03 - Case Details
It therefore did not clearly and prominently distinguish
the site from the Complainant at the point of a visitor’s initial encounter with the disputed domain name and
the upper portion of the site. Nor does the separate disclaimer on the “About” page cure that initial
impression. ...They were not sufficiently
prominent to prevent the initial confusion created by the disputed domain name and the upper portion of the
website, and they do not cure the Respondent’s intentional commercial targeting. ...
2026-09-02 - Case Details
The doctrine of “initial interest confusion” has been applied in numerous UDRP cases and it is also acknowledged in the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”).
...Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name creates “initial interest confusion”, which attracts Internet users to the Infringing Website because of its purported affiliation with Swarovski.
...
2014-02-05 - Case Details
The Complainant submits that the Respondent cannot establish rights and legitimate interests under
paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy because the website associated with the disputed domain name misleadingly
diverts users under the doctrine of initial interest confusion, whereby confusion is not excused simply
because it may be dispelled once the nature of said website is revealed, adding that the Respondent’s use of
the disputed domain name is not noncommercial under paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy because it displays
multiple advertisements.
...Nevertheless, the Respondent registered the
disputed domain name sharing a dominant portion of the TANGO mark in the knowledge that initial interest
confusion (at least) would be created thereby. Furthermore, the Respondent exacerbated this initial interest
confusion by entitling the website associated with the disputed domain name “Tango Game”.
...
2025-09-11 - Case Details
O’Steen, WIPO
Case No. D2004-0175, and followed the “initial interest confusion”
approach to political criticism. Under that approach appropriating another’s
mark for use as the web address for the criticism site is not legitimate use
of the domain name. ...Complainant has made out a prima facie case of no right or legitimate interest and Respondent has not overcome that showing. This element of the Policy has been satisfied.
Bad Faith. ...
2004-11-03 - 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” (Citations omitted).
As in that decision, “[h]ere, 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 names. ...
2012-09-17 - Case Details
Neither of the suffixed character strings displaces the initial interest confusion caused by the “barclays” component. Curious though the Panel is as to why the Complainant provided no evidence of trade mark registrations in the United States of America, the Panel is satisfied that each of the Disputed Domain Names is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s UK and European Community BARCLAYS trademarks, and that finding is sufficient to make good the first limb of the Policy.
...Therefore, in the Panel’s view, the Respondent may generate revenue directly from the initial interest arising out of the use of BARCLAYS trademark in the Disputed Domain Names (see e.g. paragraph 3.2, WIPO Overview 2.0).
...
2012-04-23 - Case Details