Indeed, because these words “relate to the Complainant’s business,” it actually “increases the likelihood of confusion between the Domain Name[] and the Complainant’s trademark.” Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation v. ...The confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the [complainant’s] 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, …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.
...
2016-06-17 - Case Details
Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name and that Respondent is neither affiliated with Complainant nor licensed to use Complainant's trademarks.
...Complainant presents correspondence between Complainant and Respondent in which Respondent requests more money for the purchase of the Disputed Domain Name and admits to not having legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant alleges that repeated offers to find a mutually agreeable purchase price have gone unanswered by Respondent who continues to stall in peaceable transfer of the Disputed Domain Name despite an initial indication that Respondent would be amenable to such transfer.
...
2014-08-21 - Case Details
- The Respondent's use of the disputed domain name has lead to confusion among members of the public.
- The Respondent has persisted in the use of the disputed domain name notwithstanding that the Complainants' rights in the trademark SURF COAST TIMES and the confusion created by the disputed domain name have been brought to his attention...The Complainants have produced evidence of an incidence of confusion but otherwise their contentions with respect to bad faith and the Respondent's rights or interests are based on mere assertion. ...
2012-01-03 - Case Details
The Complainant has enjoyed trade mark protection in Ireland since November 1997 and this confirms that the Respondent has no legitimate interest to hold this Domain Name registration. Had the Respondent demonstrated an interest in the Fastnet name in the course of trade in Ireland after November 1997, he would have infringed the Complainant’s trade mark rights. ...Additionally, whether or not the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s interest in the name, the Panel has already found that the Respondent’s explanation for acquiring the Domain Name is credible and legitimate. ...
2000-11-28 - Case Details
Respondent claims that it has never attempted to cause confusion,
but that Complainant has done so by allowing the publication of an article
in CNET News that linked Complainant’s name to Respondent’s website. ...If
Respondent lacked a legitimate interest in the domain name, this might, depending
on the context, be considered a veiled invitation to bid on the domain name,
thus justifying an inference of bad faith. ...
2001-06-01 - Case Details
In this regard, it is further stated that the website to
page 3
which the Disputed Domain Name resolves does not appear to be accessible, and that the Disputed Domain
Name has at the very least caused initial interest confusion because Internet users could visit the website of
the Disputed Domain Name in the erroneous belief that it is the official website of the Complainant. Finally,
in this regard the Complainant submits that since the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the
Complainant’s trademark in full without any distinctive element, any contemplated third-party use would
inevitably mislead internet users into believing that the Disputed Domain Name is registered to or authorised
by, or otherwise connected with the Complainant.
5.5 On the question of bad faith registration and use, the Complainant submits that the Respondent is
already using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith because: (i) any use by the Respondent of the
Disputed Domain Name would at the very least attract initial interest confusion which has been held in
previous UDRP decisions, such as Mahamayavi Bhagavan “Doc” Antle v. ...
2024-02-20 - Case Details
The Respondent is also using the Trade Mark in the Disputed Domain Name to frustrate the Complainant’s business, which is evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy.
The Disputed Domain Name creates initial interest confusion. Although the website at the Disputed Domain Name contains a disclaimer, the initial interest confusion has already occurred. ...The Panel considers that, by registering and using the Disputed Domain Name, the Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship or affiliation that website or its services (see paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
...
2018-01-17 - Case Details
Respondent appears to have blatantly attempted to mislead consumers by using Complainant's name and mark in the Domain Name so as to capitalize on initial interest confusion created by the similarity of the Domain Name with Complainant and its services. ...In this way, Respondent is capitalizing on the initial interest confusion created by the similarity of the Domain Name with Complainant's name and marks. ...
2010-07-20 - Case Details
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent contends that it has a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name because it was the first legitimate user of the mark in the commerce. ...The decision states:
“Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name. It is not authorized or licensed to use Complainant’s mark as a domain name. ...
2008-06-05 - Case Details
There thus can be no dispute but that the domain name
is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
2. Respondent Has No Legitimate Interest in the Domain Name.
Given the participation of two Respondents in this case, an interesting issue
is which Respondent’s interest is relevant to determining whether the interest
is legitimate – Pop Data, the original registrant, or Pillus, the recent purchaser.
...Pop Data registered the domain name in 1996 and, for nearly four years, never
developed a website. When it did attempt to interest a client in the domain
name, it approached a client in the hotel catering business – a venture that,
if successful, likely would have resulted in consumer confusion. ...
2000-06-06 - Case Details
If not already confusing in its mere spelling (the distinctive appearance of the word "VeriSign with the initial "V" in form of a check mark is insofar of no importance), the pronunciation of the two words is so close that confusion can arise in the mind of the consumer.
6.2 Rights in Domain Name
It cannot be concluded that Respondent has no "rights or legitimate interests" in the domain as it is required under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.
...Therefore, it has to be stated that the second test under § 4(a) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, that domain holder has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name, has not been established by Complainant.
This decision should not be understood as a substantive decision on the likelihood of confusion between the Parties' use of "VeriSign" or "VeneSign", which will be a dispute for the courts to decide, taking into account the fact that Respondent is converting its own company name in a domain name. ...
2000-06-28 - Case Details
In addition, the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name creates “initial interest confusion”, which attracts Internet users to the infringing website because of its purported affiliation with the Complainant. ...Moreover the Respondent has never been commonly known by the disputed domain name and has no legitimate interest in the SWAROVSKI trademark or the name “Swarovski” (Marriott International, Inc. v. Thomas, Burstein & Miller,
WIPO Case No. ...
2014-05-01 - Case Details
D2001-1216, which held that lack of a right or legitimate interest may, in appropriate cases, assist in determining bad faith). The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for a PPC parking page constitutes bad faith use because the Respondent is attracting Internet users to its website by causing confusion as to whether its website is, or is associated with, the Complainant or its services. ...The disputed domain name was registered on September 18, 2001. In the initial Response, the Respondent claimed that it was the registrant of the disputed domain name at that time. ...
2008-08-04 - Case Details
In view of the fame and renown of the Complainant’s marks, the failure of the Respondent to make out any of the factors in Paragraph 4(c) and the likelihood, as noted under Paragraph C below, that the Respondent’s choice of Disputed Domain Name was motivated by the possibility of creating initial confusion, the Panel does not consider that the Respondent’s arguments concerning genericism are relevant. ...The Respondent has not done so in this case and the Panel infers that the Respondent’s choice of domain name may well have been motivated by the likelihood of trading on initial confusion with the Complainant’s marks.
The Panel notes that the Respondent has previously registered several domain names incorporating well known trade marks including: , , , , and . ...
2007-09-26 - Case Details
On the Internet in particular, some users have long substituted “z” for “s” as an English plural,1 and it is not improbable that a vendor would seek to appeal to such users or others who are attracted to a deliberately informal style of English.
In any case, the risk of “initial interest confusion” is strong in this instance, since the Domain Name is comprised of the Mark in its entirety and a word that describes the form of Complainant’s product.
...As indicated above, this is not the first occasion on which Complainant has applied for relief against respondents using similar domain names, ostensibly to sell CIALIS or “generic CIALIS,” which reinforces the conclusion that the Mark is well known and appealing to persons seeking to divert Internet traffic from Complainant to sell real or supposed pharmaceutical products.
In addition to the “initial interest confusion” created by using the Mark in the Domain Name, Respondent’s website displayed what appeared to be Complainant’s logo for the CIALIS product and even a similar overall color scheme and format to that found on Complainant’s “www.cialis.com” website. ...
2005-05-26 - Case Details
Nor can the Respondent assert any form of non-commercial or fair use: the Respondent has not
used the Disputed Domain Name transparently, independently, or in a manner that would avoid confusion.
Instead, the Respondent has registered a domain name identical to a famous trademark and has left it
inactive behind a generic commercial landing page, a pattern fundamentally incompatible with any notion of
legitimate interest;
- the only reasonable interpretation is that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name to exploit,
appropriate, or otherwise benefit from the Complainant’s identity.
...The Respondent
claims that there is no comparison nor confusion between the business of the Complainant and the tech &
science educational lab activities.
...
2026-06-02 - Case Details
g) The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark, and the Respondent is intentionally creating initial interest confusion to divert users to the Disputed Domain Name's parking page for commercial gain. ...Even if after landing on the Respondent's parking page users were to then realize that he or she had been redirected to another website unconnected to the Complainant, the deliberate creation of initial interest confusion and the consequent diversion of Internet traffic is sufficient to establish bad faith.
...
2014-12-03 - Case Details
Furthermore, according to Complainant, Respondent is creating a likelihood of "initial interest" confusion with the BAY NEWS 9 mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation and endorsement of his site or of a product or service on his site. Respondent's disclaimer of any affiliation with Complainant is insufficient to dispel any likelihood of confusion, given that it is in small font on the bottom of the home page and that it does not, in any case, dispel initial interest confusion.
...
2001-11-06 - Case Details
They also refer to the Respondent’s website which shows the manner of the Respondent’s use of its name comprising not just the lower case initial letter and the capital "M", but also a ‘fat font’ for the initial "e", all three elements being elements of their house style.
They say that the Respondent was aware of them and their manner of use of their name and selected its name and style in full knowledge of the similarities and the Complainants’ rights and cannot deny that there is a likelihood of confusion. They say that the Respondent intends that confusion should result between its goods and services and the Complainants’ goods and services.
...
2000-09-13 - Case Details
In addition, Complainant asserts that Respondents have intentionally created a likelihood of confusion as to Verizon's affiliation with the Domain Name and that registration and use of the Domain Name also creates initial interest confusion. ...Such registration and use of the Domain Name, which includes the famous VERIZON Marks without providing rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name is asserted to represent bad faith registration and use in violation of the Policy. ...
2015-10-21 - Case Details