Complainant’s responses to these initial refusals were due on November 24, 2000. There is nothing in the record to show whether or not Complainant filed responses to those refusals.
...Thus, it appears that Respondent has a legitimate interest in the domain name because it made bona fide commercial use prior to notice of this dispute.
Therefore, we find that Complainant has failed to meet its burden under Paragraph 4(a)(2).
...
2001-01-04 - Case Details
The inclusion of generic content is insufficient to overcome a finding of confusion, particularly where, as here, the dominant feature of the Disputed Domain Name is a well-known mark. ...Where a 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 the Respondent has no legitimate interest in this case.” ...
2015-03-20 - Case Details
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, taking advantage from the initial interest confusion created by a domain name that is virtually identical to the Complainant’s trademark.
...
2014-01-30 - Case Details
Although consumers’ presumed goal of locating a website that offers HARLEY-DAVIDSON products and services may ostensibly be met when arriving at Respondent’s website, the initial interest confusion caused by Respondent’s unauthorized use of Complainant’s Harley-Davidson Marks damages Complainant because users can stay at Respondent’s websites and conduct some or all of the business they intended to conduct at Complainant’s website. Thus, Respondent’s use of the Domain Names results in actionable initial interest confusion.
Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Names meets the bad faith element set forth in Section 4(b)(iii) of the UDRP, because Respondent is using and/or intends to use the Domain Names to unfairly compete with Complainant by advertising the products of Complainant’s competitors, including competitors’ motorcycles and motorcycle parts, and clothing.
...
2003-12-08 - Case Details
Since that initial registration, ownership of the disputed domain name has been transferred among several other entities controlled by Mr. ...In so doing, its sole purpose is to enhance its advertising revenue by attracting internet users seeking Complainant but finding themselves at Respondent's site instead. This “initial interest confusion” does not give Respondent any legitimate rights in the disputed domain name.
...
2008-08-27 - Case Details
Given the HARRODS Mark's reputation, the Panel finds a likelihood of confusion between the HARRODS Mark and the Domain Name. The addition of the element "homeshopping" to the element "harrods" does not prevent this likelihood of confusion, as the element "homeshopping" is undistinctive and only suggests that the website or other on-line presence behind the domain name enables the public to purchase goods (from Complainant's department store) on-line.
...Rights or legitimate interests
By not submitting a Response, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances which could demonstrate any right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name. Also, in the correspondence between Complainant's solicitors and Respondent's legal representative (attached to the Complaint as Annex G), no circumstances demonstrating any right or legitimate interest were brought forward by the latter. ...
2001-11-29 - Case Details
According to the Complainant, this interest is all but legitimate, having
the Complainant invested high sums of money in its business and reputation for
quality products.
...No evidence was provided that the Respondent has used the domain name for commercial
gain by attempting to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark.
Accordingly, this Panel finds that Respondent has not registered the Domain
Name in bad faith.
7. ...
2003-04-09 - Case Details
The Respondent used the Domain Names to create “initial interest confusion” on the part of Internet users seeking the Complainant and in order to profit from at least some of that traffic.
...The Respondent believes that statistics provided demonstrate that there is no confusion between the Complainant and the Respondent.
Rights or legitimate interests
It is not denied by the Complainant that the Respondent has a legitimate interest in the number “36”, being a director of the Casino 36 Limited.
...
2013-11-28 - Case Details
This suggests that the Registrar may have thought better of its initial conduct in this case. Nevertheless, the information has now been provided after purported “approval from [its] customer”. ...Windgather Investments Ltd, supra). The confusion that is usually relevant here is the confusion that draws the Internet user to the respondent’s website in the first place (for example, confusion that leads an Internet user to type the domain name into his Internet browser). ...
2010-03-02 - Case Details
The Respondent's website and repeated use of Complainant's trademark POKEMON® in the title and source code of the "
www.pokemon-games.com
" website create a likelihood of initial interest confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Complainant's Web site. ...Even though a misdirected user may become aware that the "
www.pokemon-games.com
" website is not affiliated with the Complainant, the fact remains that the Respondent's improper and unauthorized use of the POKEMON® name diverts persons seeking Nintendo's official website. This initial interest confusion violates Nintendo's rights in its trademark. See Brookfield Communs, 174 F.3d at 1057 (discussing likelihood of confusion and noting that "Web surfers are more likely to be confused as to the ownership of a web site than traditional patrons of a brick-and-mortar store would be of a store's ownership," and that even where people realize, immediately upon accessing the complained-of website, that they have reached a site operated by someone other than the trademark owner, the infringing website will still have gained a customer by appropriating the goodwill of the trademark owner).
...
2001-01-29 - Case Details
It is submitted that such Internet users will most likely be confused into thinking that the infringing website is the Complainant’s official website because of the use of the Franklin & Marshall name. The Complainant therefore submits that the initial interest confusion or diversion of Internet traffic by the Respondent is illegal because it wrongfully exploits the Complainant’s accumulated goodwill in the FRANKLIN & MARSHALL trademark.
5.3 The Complainant further submits that the addition of the word “store” to the disputed Domain Name adds to the consumer confusion rather than eliminating the likelihood of confusion between the disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark, domain names and website. ...Thirdly, bad faith use is evidenced by several circumstances such as: (i) creating initial interest confusion, which attracts Internet users seeking the Complainant to the Respondent’s website because of an erroneous belief created by the Respondent that it is affiliated with the Complainant’s trademark; (ii) the Respondent’s intention to derive commercial gain from such Internet users contrary to the decision in Microsoft Corporation v. ...
2011-09-06 - Case Details
The Respondent's addition of the non-distinctive term “gold” to Complainant's trademark does not lessen the likelihood of confusion. Prior WIPO UDRP panels have consistently held that appropriating the mark of another by merely adding a non-distinctive term to it generally results in a likelihood of confusion. ...Because the Respondent has offered no response, the Panel finds that the Respondent has not offered any basis that would provide a right to or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. Indeed, silence of the Respondent is one indication that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. ...
2009-02-25 - Case Details
The Complainant believes this notoriety increases the likelihood of confusion.
The Complainant's legal argumentation is as follows:
The Complainant states that the Domain Name entirely comprises both trademarks ROCHE and VALIUM, in which it has rights.
...The deliberate diversion of Internet users constitutes bad faith, by creating initial interest confusion that takes advantage of the Complainant's goodwill. It is well-established in UDRP decisions that “initial interest confusion” and the resultant misdirection of Internet traffic is independently sufficient to establish bad faith. ...
2008-08-19 - Case Details
The Complainant believes this notoriety increases the likelihood of confusion.
The Complainant's legal argumentation is as follows:
The Complainant states that the Domain Name entirely comprise its trademark VALIUM, in which it has rights.
...The deliberate diversion of Internet users constitutes bad faith, by creating initial interest confusion that takes advantage of the Complainant's goodwill. It is well-established in UDRP decisions that “initial interest confusion” and the resultant misdirection of Internet traffic is independently sufficient to establish bad faith. ...
2008-08-29 - Case Details
The Complainant infers that the Respondent selected the disputed domain name to “capitalize”
on the Complainant’s mark through initial interest confusion, to attract Internet users or to prevent the
Complainant from using a domain name corresponding to its mark.
...Instead, the Respondent
argues that its planned children’s website is different from the Complainant’s business and so would avoid
confusion. Of course, even if this it truly the Respondent’s intent, it would not avoid initial confusion that
could attract Internet users to a website associated with the disputed domain name by falsely implying
association with the Complainant.
...
2024-12-19 - Case Details
It is well established that the addition of a generic term does not avoid confusion. Pfizer Inc. v. United Pharmacy Ltd.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0446 ("[g]enerally, a user of a mark 'may not avoid likely confusion by appropriating another's entire mark and adding descriptive or nondistinctive matter to it.'") ...Where a 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 the Respondent has no legitimate interest in this case." ...
2014-12-03 - Case Details
Complainant and its predecessor in interest have invested a substantial amount of time, effort and money in promoting the CHILL family of marks. ...Moreover, consumers who search the Internet for LEMON CHILL ices by using that mark will be directed to Respondent’s sales of an identical product. This not only increases the likelihood of confusion, but allows Respondent to benefit from initial interest confusion created by its use of LEMONCHILL.COM.
19. ...
2000-09-18 - Case Details
The Complainant has succeeded in proving that a risk of confusion is very likely. The first criterion, as per Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, is established.
B. ...The Panel in the circumstances fails to find any evidence that would support a finding of a legitimate interest by Respondent. Thus, the second requirement, as per Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, is established.
...
2005-05-11 - Case Details
Consumers expect to find a trademark owner on the Internet at a domain name composed of the trademark owner's name or mark, and the addition of the abbreviation “us” does not dispel the confusing similarity.
The Domain Name creates initial interest confusion, causing the diversion of Internet traffic looking for the Complainant's website to the Respondent's website. ...vi) The Respondent's registration and use of the Domain Name creates initial interest confusion, which occurs when Internet users are attracted to the Respondent's website because of the Respondent's use of the Complainant's mark in the Domain Name.
...
2009-11-18 - Case Details
In the Panel’s view, registering
a domain name in such circumstances reveals Respondent’s intent to divert
the public from Complainant to Respondent’s web page, to create a false
impression of association with Complainant and to take commercial advantage
of the potential for confusion. This cannot give rise to a right or legitimate
interest in respect of the Domain Names.
With regard to the disclaimer, the mere fact that users, once so diverted or
attracted, are confronted with a disclaimer, does not cure the initial and illegitimate
diversion. ...As extensively set forth under paragraph B of this decision, the Panel agrees that Respondent has registered the Domain Names for the purpose of attracting for commercial gain Internet users to his web site by creating an initial interest confusion with Complainant’s mark as to its source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement, as stated in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. ...
2004-07-12 - Case Details