In any case, it is accepted in many jurisdictions that a likelihood of initial interest confusion is sufficient to find a likelihood of confusion between marks. A consumer may enter the “www.kazaaplatinum.com” website thinking it is a website operated by the Complainant but realize upon closer inspection that the website is in fact operated by another party. ...In this case, the Respondent is still profiting from its use of another’s mark even though the consumer’s initial confusion was cured.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
...
2004-07-27 - Case Details
It is well established 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." ...
2014-11-18 - Case Details
In addition, Complainant alleges that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating initial interest confusion and likelihood of confusion with Complainant's CATSAN mark as it relates to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website or a product/service on its website.
...Based on the foregoing findings, the Panel concurs with Complainant that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith
The Panel further finds that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating initial interest confusion and, thus likelihood of confusion, with respect to Complainant's CATSAN mark.
...
2009-11-19 - Case Details
The Complainant then further alleges that it is likely that the consumers may mistype a domain name or use an alternate spelling and that the Respondent intentionally registered the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks in order to capitalize on the Complainant’s goodwill in its registered trademarks to divert Internet traffic to the website hosted at the disputed domain name thus constituting initial interest confusion. The Complainant cites Specialty Store Services, Inc. v. Horoshiy, Inc., & LaPorte Holdings, Inc,
WIPO Case No. ...Secondly, the Complainant argues that the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name as a click-through site creates “initial interest confusion”, which attracts, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website hosted at the disputed domain name because of its purported affiliation with the Complainant. ...
2011-02-14 - Case Details
The Respondent next argues that the doctrine of initial interest confusion – a theory the Complainant
advanced – is no longer widely followed, citing WIPO UDRP cases and U.S. law, to support the position that
confusion requires a likelihood of mistaken affiliation or sponsorship. Even without considering the issue
through the lens of the initial interest confusion doctrine which the Panel agrees is not a widely or even
generally followed legal doctrine, the Panel can conclude that the Respondent’s use of the LINKEDIN mark
plus the term “games” in the disputed domain name, especially when coupled with the presentation of puzzle
solutions drawn from the Complainant’s game, creates a misleading impression of affiliation and therefore
does not confer rights or legitimate interests under the Policy.
...
2025-11-24 - Case Details
This is because trademark holders often suffer from “initial interest confusion”, where a potential visitor does not immediately reach their site after typing in a confusingly similar domain name, and is then exposed to offensive or commercial content. ...It is certainly the case that the registration of a domain name, with a view to obtaining revenues from domain name parking that are likely to arise because of initial interest confusion on the part of the public between that domain name and a name in which trademark rights exists, can constitute bad faith registration and use. ...
2007-07-02 - Case Details
Use of the disputed domain name also creates a form of initial interest confusion, which attracts Internet users to the disputed domain name based on the use of the MARLBORO trademarks, and is further evidence of bad faith use of the disputed domain name. See, e.g., Osuuspankkikeskus OSK v.Registerfly.com,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0461 (referencing initial interest confusion in the panel's finding of bad faith registration and use).
B. Respondent
Respondent did not formally reply to Complainant's contentions.
6. ...
2014-11-28 - Case Details
The said letter goes on to state that the Respondent's position is that the Complainant need have no concerns about confusion as the Respondent does not intend that there will be any confusion and the Respondent fails to see how the Complainant can allege damage to the Complainant's good will.
...Applying this test, this Administrative Panel is conscious that the Complainant's "GUINNESS" trademark registered in respect of beer is the initial element in each of the said domain names and the second element in each of the said domain names is a reference to pubs i.e. public houses or licensed premises;
1) evidence of actual confusion: the Complainant has not submitted any evidence of actual confusion in the marketplace, however, the Respondent has not linked the said domain names to any website as yet;
2) marketing channels used: as all domain names are by their nature addresses for websites, this element does not assist this Administrative Panel in these Administrative Proceedings;
3) type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser: in the view of this Administrative Panel, given the connection between the goods in which the Complainant trades and the use of the element "pubs" in each of the said domain names, it is likely that this would cause at least an initial confusion among persons interested in Irish pubs, surfing the Internet, as to whether the Respondent's proposed website was connected with the Complainant;
4) the Respondent's intent in selecting the mark: In applying the Sleekcraft test to a comparison of trademarks and domain names in the context of ICANN administrative proceedings, this element of the test would apply to the Respondent's intention in selecting the domain name, there is no evidence as to why these domain names were chosen. ...
2001-03-07 - Case Details
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." ...Based on the foregoing, it is clear to this Panel that the Respondent is attempting to attract Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website. Finally, the Complainant submits that the Respondent is using such confusion to increase the traffic to its website and thus make commercial gain. ...
2014-12-29 - Case Details
In December the Respondent addressed another email to the Center declaring its lack of interest in the Domain Name. The Center promptly forwarded such communication to the Complainant, suggesting that the Complainant request a suspension of the present proceedings to allow transfer of the domain name.
...The Panel finds an additional circumstance evidencing bad faith, the reproduction in the Respondent’s website of the logo of the Complainant and even of the "look and feel" of the Complainant’s web page, which is very likely to augment the chances of creating confusion amongst the Internet users as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement by the Complainant corroborating the use of the domain name in bad faith.
...
2004-04-06 - Case Details
This fact, together with the Complainant's lack of interest in the name, apparent from its failure to register the relevant domain name, establishes that he had a legitimate interest in securing it for himself...Grounds for Decision
(1) The Complainant has sought to underpin its initial Complaint by filing replies which deny the validity of the Response and give further details of the relationship between corporations in its group. ...
2001-12-10 - Case Details
Complainant contends that Respondent can have no purpose for registering the Disputed Domain Name other than to cause confusion and take unfair advantage of Complainant’s goodwill in the SUPRENZA Mark and is a case of initial-interest confusion.
...It is contended by Complainant that use by Respondent of the Disputed Domain Name constitutes initial-interest confusion which arises when a junior user adopts a senior user’s trademark to gain attention in a crowded field in the hope of attracting “a first look.” ...
2015-02-04 - Case Details
The Complainant points out that Internet users who intend to purchase Swarovski products online may type into the address bar on their web browser and be directed to the Respondent’s web site. The Complainant underlines that this type of initial interest confusion is illegal because it wrongfully capitalizes on the Complainant’s goodwill in the trademark SWAROVSKI to divert Internet traffic to the web site published at the disputed domain name.
...As to the use of the disputed domain name, the Complainant indicates that the Respondent has created “initial interest confusion”, attracting Internet users to its web site because of its purported affiliation with the Complainant. ...
2013-03-04 - Case Details
This meant that when internet users viewed the content displayed at the Domain Name and clicked one of the sponsored links on the website Respondent generated revenue directly from the initial interest arising from the use of the name BARCLAYS in the Domain Name.”
The documents attached to the Complaint did not include a screenshot of the web page as referenced by Complainant. ...Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because: (1) Respondent registered the disputed domain name on February 3, 2011; (2) the disputed domain name was used as a holding page containing sponsored links which included the products and services of competitors of Complainant; (3) initial interest confusion at Respondent's website resulted in click-throughs by Internet users and income for Respondent; (4) Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name; (5) Respondents operation of a pay-per-click sponsored page does not constitute legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, and; (6) Complainant never gave permission to Respondent to use its trademark in the disputed domain name.
...
2011-11-09 - Case Details
Such “initial interest confusion,” occurring at the point where a consumer is attracted to a website and regardless of whether such confusion is alleviated at some point thereafter, is precisely the result of the content of Respondent's website at the Disputed Domain Name outlined supra. Respondent's blatant copying of Complainant's website's content without any notice that it is unaffiliated with Complainant can cause initial interest confusion, thus allowing Respondent to improperly trade on Complainant's goodwill associated with the Mark. ...
2010-07-14 - Case Details
A. The Initial Deletion of the Domain Name
6.5 As has already been recorded, at the time that the Complaint was initially filed in these proceedings, the registrar of the Domain Name was eNom. ...On the other hand, 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 (see, for example, the decision of three member panel in Express Scripts, Inc. v. ...
2008-12-11 - Case Details
The use of a disclaimer on the website only shows that Respondent knows that visitors will otherwise assume that the domain name is affiliated with Complainant Prevost Car Inc. Further, the disclaimer does not dispel the initial interest confusion.
B. Respondent
1. Late Filing of the Response
Respondent apologized for the late Response. ...The claim that the mere use of the domain name itself creates “initial interest confusion” is no longer good law throughout the U.S. under Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. ...
2011-12-02 - Case Details
Even if Respondent perceives its actions as parody, Respondent’s use
of domain names that correspond exactly to Complainant’s trademarks cannot
withstand challenge. Such initial interest confusion associated with Complainant’s
trademarks—especially where the domain names do not indicate any parody
and correspond precisely to those trademarks—can cause significant confusion
among Complainant’s customers. ...Respondent merely registers domain names that correspond exactly
to the trademarks of others, which give no indication about the content of the
website. Such actions result in initial interest confusion and unfairly draw
unknowing consumers to Registrant’s websites. Such misleading activity
is not fair use and cannot justify rights or legitimate interests to a domain
name.
...
2003-03-13 - Case Details
The BEL AMI mark, used in connection with erotic film production and distribution, can only identify the Complainant and Internet users navigating to the disputed domain name would be misled to believe that the disputed domain name is in some way connected to and affiliated with the Complainant. This is known as “initial interest confusion” (see, Covance, Inc. and Covance Laboratories Ltd. v. The Covance Campaign,
WIPO Case No. ...The Respondent, upon registration, used a privacy service hence it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has used a privacy service in order to mask its identity to make it more difficult for a lawsuit (which could result in damages of USD100,000) to be filed against him under the ACPA.
The Complainant does not need to show actual confusion: rather, the potential or reasonable confusion is sufficient. Where the domain name is likely to cause “initial interest confusion” such that users might abandon their efforts to find complainant's products, it is irrelevant that the users eventually realized that the website they reached is not the website they were seeking.
...
2012-04-20 - Case Details
Although competition is arguably less clear here than in situations involving other disputed domain
names under the Policy, the Panel also takes note of the likelihood of initial interest confusion,
“which occurs when a member of the public sees the disputed domain name and thinks that it may lead
to a website associated with the Complainant”. ...[A] respondent cannot make a ‘legitimate noncommercial
or fair use of a domain name’ if any type of initial confusion is created.” CBS Broadcasting v. Nabil Z.
aghloul, WIPO Case No. D2004-0988.
The Panel finds that Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.
7. ...
2025-11-18 - Case Details