In addition, the current Respondent appears to be identical to the initial Respondent and they certainly share the same fax number. Therefore, the actions of the initial Respondent are relevant to considering the Respondent’s motivations in registering the trademark in the absence of an explanation from the Respondent of its background.
As the Complainant has demonstrated, the initial Respondent has a track record of cybersquatting and this pattern of conduct reinforces the Panel’s view that the Respondent’s registration was in bad faith.
...
2004-09-21 - Case Details
The said Chloé Representative in correspondence with the Respondent also implicitly admitted that the person Chloe Dior existed and was known to be an adult actress.
The initial Response asserted that the Complainant has no greater right or legitimate interest in the name “Chloe Dior” than the Respondent himself.
...Nor has the Respondent attempted to attract, by creating the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark, Internet users for commercial gain. There is very little likelihood of confusion. ...
2009-01-12 - Case Details
Two distinct factors militate against Respondent, however, in hypothetically availing himself of the defense outlined in Paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy: initial interest confusion and the presence of commercial advertising on the VPC site to which the Domain Name resolved.
...FA0004000094671 (NAF August 31, 2002) (a domain
name that appears to belong to a party criticized on the website causes initial
interest confusion and is evidence of bad-faith registration and use); Annette
Antoun d/b/a The Paxton Herald v. ...
2005-02-08 - Case Details
The Respondent’s use of the domain name creates initial interest confusion among the Complainant’s customers who are likely to assume mistakenly that when they enter the domain name they will be directed to the Complainant’s website for its U.S....Respondent has also created links to the Complainant’s website
without permission from the Complainant. All of this exacerbates the potential
for confusion even after the initial interest confusion and diversion and is
further evidence of bad faith use of the domain name.
...
2007-02-02 - Case Details
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 name after the initial moment of calling up the pages to which the domain name resolves.
...The fact that such confusion may be dispelled, and replaced by annoyance or disgust once the nature of the site is revealed, does not negate the fact of initial confusion."
...
2002-12-18 - Case Details
Moreover, the Complainant’s mark is used in a way that triggers initial interest confusion regarding the relationship with Complainant in a way that is not adequately dispelled, for reasons more fully discussed below.
...Even assuming that a disclaimer might be effective to remedy initial interest confusion in a way that would remedy the initial problematic use, Respondent’s disclaimer does not dispel the initial interest confusion caused by the domain name itself and is inadequate to avoid likelihood of confusion at the site. ...
2005-02-09 - Case Details
The Respondent denies that he acted in bad faith and indicates that the initial registration of the Disputed Domain Name was with the knowledge of the Complainant, with the sole motive to support the business of the Complainant. The Respondent states that the initial registration was not made to divert customers, or create confusion, or to interfere with the Complainant’s business or to act in any manner that was not in the best interest of the Complainant.
...
2012-12-20 - Case Details
D2003-0623
(October 16, 2003), and (a disclaimer
on the website does not avoid initial interest confusion).
Under the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the question is whether the Domain Names themselves, not the website to which they resolve, are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. ...But paragraph 4(b)(iv) treats the intentional diversion
of Internet users from the mark holder’s website in the first instance,
accomplished by displaying the mark in the domain name itself, as an instance
of bad faith. The Panel concludes that such deliberate initial interest confusion
occurs here and is evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of the
Domain Names.
...
2005-08-08 - Case Details
In so doing this Panel has emphasized the rationale of the “initial interest confusion” doctrine, as View 1 has occasionally been referred to in the courts. As stated in the Dello Russo case, supra, in language that applies with equal force here:
“Respondent's selection of Complainant's name for her criticism site allows her to make use of Complainant's service mark in a manner that would lead an ordinary Internet user initially to believe that Respondent was Complainant or that Respondent had Complainant's permission to distribute her message. ...The present case illustrates very well why applying the initial interest confusion doctrine will not interfere in any way with Respondent's vigorous exercise of his free speech rights on the Internet. ...
2009-03-11 - Case Details
The Domain Name at issue was registered on November 9, 1999, just three months after OMware’s announcement of its initial public offering of shares to California residents. Hence Respondent must have been aware of Complainant’s mark.
...Users would logically expect to find content concerning the MASTER BUILDER software at “www.masterbuilder.com”.
The initial confusion experienced by internet users when visitors to the “www.masterbuilder.com” website expecting to find content concerning Complainant’s software product, instead find links related to the MASTER BUILDER software but no link to Complainant’s website or any explanation of the connection between Respondent and Intuit, satisfies the legal requirements for likelihood of confusion under a theory of “initial interest confusion” under United States law.
...
2006-03-14 - Case Details
Viewing the Holiday Inn
logo on the website, replete with the trademark registration symbol, visitors
would likely conclude that Respondent is licensed by the owners of Holiday Inn
or is cooperating with them, which is not the case at least with respect to
customer service, cancellations, partnerships, and award programs. Thus, there
is a likelihood of confusion even when the full web page is displayed.
In any event, the "initial interest confusion" occasioned by the
use of the service mark in the Domain Name is sufficient to harm Complainant,
since some visitors will stay and make their reservations at Respondent’s site
or simply fail to persevere in locating Complainant’s own website. ...Apps., 2002)
(applying US trademark law in the context of Internet domain names and discussing
how actionable initial interest confusion occurs when (1) the marks are similar,
(2) the offered goods or services are related, and (3) the parties simultaneously
use the Web as a marketing channel – all factors that appear in the present
case).
...
2003-05-23 - Case Details
Courts have previously recognized a likelihood of confusion between fashion magazines and clothing. We recognize that the addition of an unrelated generic term, such as "lawn mower" or "baked goods," could be sufficient in appropriate cases to avoid confusion, but that is not the case here. ...Such conduct is a reckless or deliberate infringement of the GQ mark and does not give rise to a legitimate interest in the Domain Names.
Respondent's reliance on its trademark application to claim a legitimate interest seems misplaced. ...
2001-05-14 - Case Details
D2000-1072, in which the Panel found that "disclaimers … do not
dispel initial interest confusion."
Based on information and belief, Complainant asserts Respondent registered
and used the Disputed Domain Name in order to trade upon and profit from the
public’s recognition of Complainant’s NASCAR marks and the enormous goodwill
associated with them. ...Respondent’s disclaimer of affiliation
with Complainant cannot cure the initial confusion it generated through its
Disputed Domain Name. See The New York Times Company v. New York Services
ICANN Case No. ...
2002-02-21 - Case Details
The Complainant also argues that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name creates initial interest confusion by using the Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name and argues that this is further evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith use of the disputed domain name. ...Jafraproducts Admin,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0416 (referencing initial interest confusion in the panel’s decision regarding bad faith registration and use).
The Complainant further submits that the Respondent’s actions will damage the CARDS AGAINST HUMANITY mark and the Complainant’s assets. ...
2017-08-07 - Case Details
Such confusion caused by the Respondent may be described as ‘initial interest confusion.’
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a non-exclusive list of factors that evidence bad faith. ...D2002-1128, in which on the question of bad faith it was held that
“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 Complainant’s
site….. 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.”
...
2004-11-11 - Case Details
This small group of recent domain name cases are based on a judicially invented legal concept that arose in the early 2000’s which is sometimes called “Initial Interest Confusion”, where it is argued that the Internet reader is initially confused as to who maintains the website at the domain in question. ...I explain why this is so in some detail, below, in this Dissent.
Why The Initial Interest Confusion Concept Is Wrong In Principle
Assuming that the reader has carefully read the facts and the detailed reasoning of the Majority in this case, it should be quickly obvious that since there is no commercial use of the domain, the principles established by ICANN preclude any concept that the mere use of a domain name that is similar to a trademark is, in and of itself, in violation of paragraph 15(a) of the Rules and the specifics of paragraph 4(a) of the Rules. ...
2008-06-18 - Case Details
(9) The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name both creates and takes advantage of “initial interest confusion” on the part of Internet users who may enter the name in the expectation of finding the Complainant’s website...In particular, the Panel finds that Respondent is seeking to take advantage of both “initial interest confusion” and actual confusion on the part of Internet users attempting to find the Complainant’s website and products. ...
2007-11-05 - Case Details
Moreover, the Panel agrees with the Complainant contention that this particular suffix is likely to cause at least initial interest confusion, considering that the brand LEGO is always associated with kids' toys and products.
...In addition to the fact that the Respondent is attempting to sell the disputed Domain Name to the Respondent, the Respondent is using the disputed Domain Name to direct users via initial interest confusion to other websites, linked to from the website where the disputed Domain Name resolves, in hope for commercial gain, as explained above.
...
2010-04-21 - Case Details
The Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent employs initial interest confusion with the Complainant’s trademark in order to attract Internet users for commercial gain by diverting them through sponsored links to websites including those of the Complainant’s competitors. This activity is also disruptive of the Complainant’s business. It is contended that the initial interest confusion constitutes bad faith irrespective of whether the Internet user realises that they have been misled.
...
2011-10-17 - Case Details
iii) Complainant has not demonstrated that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
(a) Respondent alleges that initial interest confusion alone does not preclude a finding of nominative fair use, and alleges that a reasonable user would not be confused as to the sponsorship or endorsement of the website at the disputed domain name, because of the website’s “unflattering factual information” about Complainant’s products. ...The confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the FACTS trademark creates the risk that users will accidentally visit Respondent’s site in the belief that the disputed domain name is associated with Complainant. While such initial interest confusion is not sufficient to show bad faith in every case, see, e.g., Pfizer Inc v. Van Robichaux, supra, the deliberate creation of initial interest confusion by a party directly “in competition with the Complainant for the provision of goods or services” is an archetypical example of bad faith registration and use. ...
2013-06-24 - Case Details