Further, the addition of the designation “nigeria” and its abbreviation “ng” have no distinguishing effect and is not sufficient to prevent the risk of confusion. The likelihood of confusion is increased by the fact that Complainant is doing business worldwide, the websites hosted under both domain names imitate the Complainant's corporate brand identity and therefore the Internet users will assume that they are visiting an official Nigerian website of the Complainant.
...Nonetheless, before entering into said analysis, the Panel deems necessary to clarify the issue regarding the appropriate identity of the Respondent.
A. Identification of Respondent
An initial search of the WhoIs database by the Complainant showed the apparent registrants to be “Domain Privacy Group, Inc.” from Canada, named Respondent 1 and “Epesonic” from Nigeria, named Respondent 2 in the initial Complaint.
...
2009-11-16 - Case Details
The Complainant believes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to create the impression of association with the Complainant, its agents, products and services; to trade off the goodwill associated with the Complainant's FLUOR trademark; and/or to create initial interest confusion for individuals or in this case, employees looking for information about the Complainant and its benefits. ...In the present case the Complainant believes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to create the impression of association with the Complainant, its agents, products and services; to trade off the goodwill associated with the Complainant's FLUOR trademark; and/or to create initial interest confusion for individuals or in this case, employees looking for information about the Complainant and its benefits. ...
2010-07-01 - Case Details
This argument is in some ways similar to the test of initial interest confusion
in US trademark law1.
However, that test as this Panel understands it requires a direct or indirect
commercial element in the use of the domain name, which, based on the record,
is not present in this case. ...Gervais
Sole Panelist
Dated: August 4, 2005
1 For a discussion, see
Confusion in Cyberspace: Defending and Recalibrating the Initial Interest Confusion
Doctrine, 117 HARV. ...
2005-08-22 - Case Details
The Complainant then further alleges that the Respondent intentionally registered the disputed domain name which is confusing similar to the Complainant’s trademark in order to capitalize on the Complainant’s goodwill in the SWAROVSKI marks to divert Internet traffic to the website hosted at the disputed domain name thus constituting initial interest confusion, citing Ticketmaster Corporation v. Polanski,
WIPO Case No. D2002-0166; W. & G. ...Thirdly, the Complainant argues that the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name creates “initial interest confusion”, which attracts Internet users to the website hosted at the disputed domain name because of its purported affiliation with Swarovski, citing Osuuspankkikeskus Osk v. ...
2011-01-28 - Case Details
Complainant alleges that Respondent Stanley Pace transferred fourteen of the disputed domain names to fictitious registrants shortly after the initial Complaint was filed. Complainant has not introduced sufficient evidence to support this claim. The evidentiary record only demonstrates that four disputed domain names were transferred after the filing of the initial Complaint. ...D2008-1986 (concluding that “if the domain name in question was chosen because of the similarity to a name in which a complainant has an interest and in order to capitalise or otherwise take advantage of that similarity, then such registration and use does not provide the registrant with a right or legitimate interest in the domain name”). ...
2013-10-10 - Case Details
It is in light of this crucial finding of fact that the panelist's comments as to initial interest confusion have to be understood. This case is no authority for the proposition that initial interest confusion without more is enough to satisfy paragraph 4(a)(ii). ...D2002-0744).
7.18 Further, even if unintentional initial interest confusion were sufficient (which it is not), the Complainant has not brought forward a single piece of evidence to suggest that there has been any initial interest confusion in this case.
...
2008-12-22 - Case Details
The Complainant contends that the Respondent’s initial registration of the disputed domain name indicates an attempt to disrupt the business of a competitor pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy. ...Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant is now required to make a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or a legitimate interest in . Once the Complainant has presented its case in this regard, the Respondent thereafter has the burden of rebuttal, or to the Panel may conclude that the Respondent indeed lacks rights to or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. ...
2010-11-22 - Case Details
The Respondent’s website does not evidence any prior rights or legitimate interest in the VELUX mark or indication that the Respondent has been commonly known by the domain name. ...No other basis for the Respondent’s selection of the highly distinctive VELUX mark in the contested domain name can be inferred under the circumstances in the record, except that the Respondent sought to attract Internet users for commercial gain to its site by means of initial confusion. It is also well established by “numerous WIPO panels that attracting Internet traffic and diverting it to website(s) selling products of complainant’s competitors by using a domain name identical or confusingly similar is evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.” ...
2008-03-06 - Case Details
Even if it did not know of
the disputed domain name at the time of its initial registration, it must have
been aware of the name when it renewed its registration. Complainant contends
that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the intention of offering
it for sale to Complainant or another party, to attract Internet users to its
own website by creating confusion as to sponsorship or affiliation, and/or preventing
Complainant from registering the name. ...Respondent has not used the disputed domain name on an active website, and
has not sought to divert Internet users by creating confusion as to sponsorship
of or affiliation with Complainant. It could not have undertaken an initial
registration with this intent, and the Panel will not infer the development
of such an intent at an indeterminate point of renewal.
...
2002-06-06 - Case Details
In this letter, Respondent claimed that he did not take the initial approach regarding sale of the domain names at issue, and that his intentions with the domain names are the establishment of non-commercial fan-pages.
...Thus, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest
in the contested domain names.
6.3 Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The evidence submitted by the Complainant shows that Respondent registered
the domain names at issue without any rights or legitimate interest and
attempted to selling the same to Complainant for valuable consideration
in excess of the out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain names.
...
2002-06-11 - Case Details
The modest disclaimer at the very end of the lengthy page is most unlikely to dispel confusion; indeed, the nature of this disclaimer is itself an indication of the Respondent’s intent to cause confusion. ...If, on the other hand, "registered" refers only to the initial registration, it is necessary to consider whether this was also done in bad faith. As noted above, the Panel considers that the initial use made of the Domain Name was likewise an attempt to exploit the reputation of the Complainant’s newspaper to promote a competing service and/or to provoke the Complainant into paying for the Domain Name. ...
2003-07-04 - Case Details
Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because: (1) Respondent must have known of Complainant’s trademark when it registered the disputed domain name; (2) failure to respond to Complainant’s cease-and-desist and transfer demand is evidence of bad faith; (3) using the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent’s website demonstrates bad faith; (4) registration and use of the disputed domain name creates initial interest confusion; (5) associating the disputed domain name with an inactive website bolsters a conclusion of bad faith.
...Complainant has argued that the disputed domain name creates initial interest confusion among Internet users because of the well-known and distinctive character of its trademark when combined with the descriptive noun or verb “reviews”. ...
2015-05-22 - Case Details
v) If the Panel is not satisfied that the relevant date for determining bad faith registration is the date of renewal, the initial registration of the domain name by the Respondent was effected in bad faith. The initial websites of the Respondent show that the intention was for consumers to be able to exchange any travel guides, and at no point in time was the platform limited to Lonely Planet guide books only. ...The Respondent acknowledged that trademark at the bottom of the initial versions of his website. Those facts indicate that the Respondent intended to attract consumers to his website by creating confusion about the source, sponsorship, or approval or endorsement of the Respondent’s website.
...
2004-11-03 - Case Details
Finally, the Complainant argues that the use of another's trademark to confuse customers into visiting a website that is unaffiliated with the trademark owner also constitutes infringement, even if the customer ultimately realizes that there is no connection with the trademark owner and cites several court decisions involving initial interest confusion, for instance, Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Erum't Corp., 174 F.3d at 1062 ("Although there is no source confusion in the sense that consumers know they are patronizing [the junior user] rather than [the senior user], there is nevertheless initial interest confusion in the sense that, by using [the senior user's mark] to divert people looking for [the senior user's goods] to its web site, [the junior user] improperly benefits from the goodwill that [the senior user] developed in its mark.") and Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Netscape Communications Corp., 354 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 2004) (declaring initial interest confusion impermissibly capitalizes on the goodwill associated with a mark and constitutes actionable trademark infringement). ...
2016-05-18 - Case Details
To make this determination, the Panel need only look at the mark and the domain name; if they are sufficiently similar, the first factor is satisfied. The existence or absence of a likelihood of confusion in the marketplace is more appropriately considered under the legitimacy of interest and bad faith factors. ...This unauthorized use of a trademark is classic trademark infringement, and surely will cause "initial interest confusion," if not full blown confusion as to the source, sponsorship or authorization of Respondent’s services.
...
2000-08-07 - Case Details
Thus, the Respondent’s actions were undertaken in bad faith, primarily for the purpose of disrupting the Complainant’s business, thereby preventing the Complainant from making use of its own marks, and attempting to mislead Internet users as to the “source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement” of the Respondent’s website, by means of initial interest confusion. This Complainant’s conclusion of bad faith registration and use is supported by the fact that no plausible explanation exists as to why Respondent selected the TATA mark and TATATEL as part of its domain name other than to trade on the goodwill of the marks.
...Even if Internet users would realize that the Respondent’s
website is not connected to the trademark owner, the Respondent is likely to
profit from their initial confusion, since they may still be tempted to click
on sponsored links. In plural previous UDRP decisions it has been established
that the use of trademarks to divert Internet users, thereby obtaining click-through
commissions, is use in bad faith (see e.g. ...
2006-05-09 - Case Details
D2000-1228 (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist).
...Although no specific amount was mentioned in the initial email, the Panel concludes that the Respondents late reply that the disputed domain names were not for sale was an attempt to force the Complainant to come back with an offer of a considerable amount to meet the Respondent’s initial sales offer.
...
2012-02-29 - Case Details
Skipton BS contends that Mr Colman has no legitimate interest in the name alleging that he has no business interests in or geographical connection with the Skipton area. ...He asserts that the linkage with "bestoftheweb.com" and "topnotchsites.com" was "to dispel all possibility of confusion and make it absolutely clear that Skipton.com was and is not offering any financial services".
...
2000-12-01 - Case Details
The disclaimer is in grey text in a smaller font and is more difficult to read compared to the bold and larger colour graphics shown in the advertisement for the DIRECTV streaming player. The disclaimer does nothing to alleviate the initial interest confusion generated by the disputed domain name itself.
The Website refers to a model of the Complainant’s ROKU streaming player from 2008, which has not been available for more than 2 years.
...This is typically explained by UDRP and .auDRP panels with reference to the probability of Internet user "initial interest confusion" - by the time such user reaches and reads any disclaimer under the disputed domain name, any registrant objective of attracting visitors for financial advantage to its website through use of the trade mark in the domain name will generally have been achieved.
...
2013-05-22 - Case Details
The Complainant maintains that the confusion caused by the Respondent
is described as "initial interest confusion" arising from the deliberate
diversion of Internet users who intend to access the Complainant's website and
by the Respondent taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s goodwill.
...The Panel acknowledges a prior Panel
determination that such "deliberate creation of initial interest confusion
and the consequent diversion of Internet traffic is sufficient to establish
bad faith on the Respondent’s part." ...
2003-09-23 - Case Details