The domain names were used intentionally to attempt to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to the websites by creating confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the websites by means of initial confusion.
...The disclaimer on one of the websites does nothing to alleviate the initial interest confusion generated by the domain names themselves.
Accordingly the Panel finds that the domain names have been used in bad faith intentionally to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of those websites.
...
2008-04-18 - Case Details
It submits that the disputed domain names are deceptive, designed
to draw Internet traffic based on a false impression of legitimacy, and will cause “initial interest confusion” to
Internet users by falsely implying an affiliation with the Complainant. ...Indeed, the Panel infers that it is precisely for this reason that the Respondent selected the
disputed domain names: even if on visiting the Respondent’s websites it becomes clear that they are
criticism sites, the Internet user has only been attracted to the websites in the first place because of the
deceptive nature of the disputed domain names (what the Complainant refers to as “initial interest
confusion”).
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/
page 6
While the Respondent is operating what appear to be a genuine criticism websites, and may well be
motivated by what it believes to be in the public interest, that does not alter the fact that the disputed domain
names create an impermissible risk of user confusion through impersonation. ...
2025-07-02 - Case Details
These steps were taken to minimize any potential risk of initial-interest
confusion and to ensure that users receive clear disclosure before choosing to follow any voluntary link.
...However, given the overall circumstances, in which the disputed domain names are
ambiguous and the website content did nothing to avoid confusion regarding potential sponsorship or
endorsement prior to receipt of notice of the dispute, these notices are of no avail. ...
2026-03-06 - Case Details
Respondent’s previous use of a disclaimer does not eliminate the likelihood
of confusion, given that the disclaimer was not conspicuous and did not legitimize
Respondent’s actions. See Madonna Ciccone p/k/a Madonna v. ...D2000-0847
(“First, the disclaimer may be ignored or misunderstood by Internet users.
Second, a disclaimer does nothing to dispel initial interest confusion that
is inevitable from Respondent’s actions.”); Xerox Corp. v. Imaging
Solution, WIPO Case No. ...
2006-11-16 - Case Details
However, the Panel is not persuaded that use of “AAA” in the Domain Name by Respondent is meant to improve its alphabetical ranking. As an initial matter, the trade name of Respondent is “A & A” not “AAA”. A more accurate and appropriate domain name would begin with “aanda”. ...Previous UDRP panels have ruled, in the context of commercial websites that “a likelihood of confusion is presumed, and such confusion will inevitably result in the diversion of Internet traffic from the Complainant’s site to the Respondent’s site”. ...
2016-09-29 - Case Details
Moreover, the registration and use of the disputed domain names creates a form of initial interest confusion, which attracts Internet users to the disputed domain names based on the use of the MARLBORO mark. ...Moreover, the registration and use of the disputed domain names creates a form of initial interest confusion, which attracts Internet users to the disputed domain names through the use of the MARLBORO trademark. ...
2017-06-19 - Case Details
The Panel believes that the Respondent's has a genuine interest in the Domain
Name. The Domain Name is nothing but the reflection of the owner's surname which
she has been using in a bona fide manner since 1994. ...The Panel agrees that the Domain Name could create an initial confusion in the sense that, given the popularity of the Complainant's mark, Internet users searching for the Complainant's web page could be diverted to the Respondent's website. ...
2004-04-27 - Case Details
Just as the exceptional circumstances of this case have resulted in the Respondent acquiring a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name over time, so might the evolving circumstances result in the Respondent losing that right or legitimate interest. If, for example, the Respondent began using the disputed domain name in relation to a different business, then it may well be that its acquired right or legitimate interest would cease. This is because the Respondent’s right or legitimate interest has arisen due to its almost continual use of the disputed domain name over 10 years in respect of the same business. ...
2012-07-18 - Case Details
Further, 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.” ...
2015-02-27 - Case Details
Complainant mentions that at First Respondent’s present website, the initial text has been removed and Internet users are now directed to First Respondent’s "live" website in Russian. ...Furthermore, all virtual casinos offering cashsplash games do in fact prohibit Russian citizens from taking part in casino activities. Therefore, Complainant would not have any interest in Russian websurfers and First Respondent would have no interest in non-Russian ones as First Respondent’s business and website are in Russian; there could thus be no confusion.
...
2002-08-29 - Case Details
- It is more likely than not, that Respondent’s primary motive in registering and using the disputed
domain name was to capitalize on or otherwise take advantage of Complainant’s trademark rights, through
the creation of initial interest of confusion.
- Although the disputed domain name is currently inactive, this state of inactivity does not mean that the
disputed domain name is used in good faith...- has as primary motive in registering and using the disputed domain name to capitalize on or otherwise
take advantage of Complainants’ trademark rights, through the creation of initial interest of confusion.
- likely configured the email servers on the disputed domain name and for engaging in a phishing
scheme related to the disputed domain name does not mean that the domain name is used in good faith.
...
2026-07-03 - Case Details
Dist Lexis 21459 (C.D.Cal 1998).
There is no danger of confusion with the Complainant’s use of the mark, however. Respondent’s website clearly and emphatically discloses its attitude toward the Complainant on its initial page. ...As the Respondent counters, it certainly is true that, upon arriving at the Respondent’s web site, the public would realize that this is instead a protest site devoted to exposing what the Respondent and others feel are the Complainant’s shortcomings. The Policy however does not countenance this "initial confusion". The same is true for the public that types in the disputed domain name looking for the Complainant: they have a right to expect to find the Complainant at a web site whose name is so close to the Complainant’s service mark.
...
2003-07-21 - Case Details
The Registrant has set out to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark, including by
means of initial interest confusion.
The Registrant’s use of the disputed domain name for a private members club, unrelated to the
Complainant’s business, damages and/or dilutes the reputation of the Complainant, which serves the
broader consuming public.
...The Registrant has set out to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark, including by means of initial interest confusion.
The Registrant’s use of the disputed domain name for a private members club, unrelated to the Complainant’s business, damages and/or dilutes the reputation of the Complainant, which serves the broader consuming public.
...
2022-08-11 - Case Details
Respondent’s registration and use of the contested domain name to attract visitors to Respondent’s pornographic website through initial interest confusion and to link them to other sites of the same type is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to applicable Policy case law.
...AF-0336 (finding no rights or legitimate interests
where no such right or interest was immediately apparent to the Panel and Respondent
did not come forward to suggest any right or interest it may have possessed).
...
2005-06-11 - Case Details
The Respondent acknowledges that the use of a domain name which is identical to a trademark could cause
“initial interest confusion” as to the operator of the relevant website. However, it states that panels’ approach
to this matter is not inflexible, and that a more nuanced and holistic approach is appropriate in this case.
...While the Respondent is operating what appears to be a genuine criticism site and may well be motivated by
what it believes to be in the public interest, that does not alter the fact that the disputed domain name creates
an impermissible risk of user confusion through impersonation. .
...
2025-06-11 - Case Details
The adornment “corp” therefore only serves to increase the potential for
confusion. See Nipro Corporation v. Proxy Protection LLC / Gianfranco Vestuto, WIPO Case No.
D2021-3070 (“The trademark NIPRO is included in its entirety in the disputed domain name. ...As such, the Complainants contend that the disputed
domain name is, at first glance, designed to create an initial interest confusion among Internet users.
The Complainants add that any initial interest confusion was not dispelled upon the arrival of an Internet user
on the website associated with the disputed domain name which in the past largely copied the look and feel
of the Complainants’ own website and incorporated the Complainants’ CHEVRON word and figurative
trademarks prominently on the top and bottom of the website.
...
2023-10-17 - 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
The Complainant also invokes the principal
of ‘initial interest confusion’ which is the fact that when the
Internet users finally discovers that the domain name or website is not operated
by ADIDAS, this cannot cure the initial interest confusion experienced by the
average Internet user when viewing, using or typing in the Respondent’s
domain name. The Complainant argues that the ‘initial interest confusion’
has been applied in numerous UDRP cases and it is also acknowledged in the Overview
of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions.
...
2007-04-05 - Case Details
The domain names of the Respondent can be characterised as creating initial interest confusion even though closer inspection of the website will result in such initial confusion being displaced and deception avoided. However, such initial confusion is not enough for a Complaint to justify remedy under the Policy.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three non-limiting examples of circumstances which, if established to the satisfaction of the Panel, rebut a Complainant’s assertion that the domain name owner has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. ...
2000-06-07 - Case Details
Furthermore, any Web site operated by Respondent at the domain name POKEMONPIKACHU.COM will at a minimum create a likelihood of initial interest confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Complainant's Web site. The Respondent's improper and unauthorized registration and use of the POKEMON® and PIKACHU® names diverts persons seeking Nintendo's official Web sites. This initial interest confusion violates Nintendo's rights in its trademark. See Brookfield Communications, 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 Web site, that they have reached a site operated by someone other than the trademark owner, the infringing Web site will still have gained a customer by appropriating the goodwill of the trademark owner)
Fourth, the Respondent's failure to respond to Complainant's cease and desist e-mail, and Complainant's inability to deliver a hard copy cease and desist letter to Respondent as a result of Respondent's failure to provide current and updated contact information to the Registrar is evidence of Respondent's bad faith in registering and using the domain name. ...
2000-11-29 - Case Details