The Respondent leads Internet users to the parking site with sponsored links of competitors by creating a likelihood of confusion with the trademark with a reputation CALZEDONIA. Even if a visitor to the Respondent’s site were to realize that it had been redirected to another website unconnected with the Complainant, nonetheless the initial interest confusion that lured the visitor in would also support a finding of bad faith.
...Even if a visitor to the Respondent’s site were to realize that it had been redirected to another website unconnected with the Complainant, nonetheless the initial interest confusion that lured the visitor in would also support a finding of bad faith. The Panel further finds that by using the Complainant’s trademark to divert Internet users to an unrelated site the Respondent is attempting, for commercial gain, to attract Internet users and thus to disrupt the Complainant’s business. ...
2012-06-19 - Case Details
These relationships create an inherent conflict of interest since the Panel relies on the Registrar to provide accurate information in response to the verification request, but the Respondent, who also is the CEO of the Registrar, would have an interest in hiding accurate information about the ownership of the disputed domain name (not to mention other domain names it may acquire) in order to strengthen the Respondent’s arguments with respect to its purported legitimate interest and potential bad faith.
Those prospects of a conflict of interest are problematic in this case. The Registrar, in its verification, inaccurately claimed that Mr. ...
2021-08-19 - Case Details
On balance, the existing panel decisions suggest that where there is no 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 Respondent has no legitimate interest in this case and the Panel has adopted this approach. ...However, there is likely to be abusive use where the mark is used in a domain name so as to either, firstly, impersonate the trade mark owner (so as to benefit from initial interest confusion created by the domain name itself) or, secondly, promote the sale of competing or unrelated products. ...
2009-04-29 - Case Details
The Complainant further states that the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name creates initial interest confusion, that the purpose of the Respondent’s use seems to be to obtain commercial gain by misleading consumers to believe that the connected site was operated or authorised by the Complainant. ...D2000-1228 (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist).
...
2011-08-09 - Case Details
B. Legitimate Interest
Respondents contend that they are the rightful owners of the domain name which they contributed to the joint venture with Complainants. ...We do not believe such use gives rise to any cognizable right or interest under the Policy. Therefore, we find that Respondents lack any right or legitimate interest in the domain name .
...
2002-06-21 - Case Details
On the other hand, a neutral modifier like “about” has no effect of reducing the likelihood of initial confusion (Chinmoy Kumar Ghose v. ICDSoft.com and Maria Sliwa,
WIPO Case No. D2003-0248).
In Covance, Inc. and Covance Laboratories Ltd. v. ...It is irrelevant that, once arrived at a webpage, confusion as to the true owner may be resolved. In the interest of truth and elimination of confusion on the Internet, a domain name should not be misleading.
...
2008-04-30 - Case Details
The registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name creates a form of initial interest confusion, which attracts Internet users to the Disputed Domain Name based on the use of the MARLBORO trademarks. ...RegisterFly.com,
WIPO Case No. D2006-0461 (referencing initial interest confusion in the panel’s finding of bad faith registration and use).
vi. The Disputed Domain Name currently resolved to an inactive website. ...
2017-06-16 - Case Details
In addition,
the Respondent’s recent renewal of the Domain Name for an additional year only
helps to increase such confusion on the part of Internet users. Furthermore,
even if an Internet user did conduct a further investigation and realized that
the particular site was not authorized or operated by the Complainant, such
does not diminish the fact that substantial confusion, or at minimum, initial
interest confusion, has or will occur. ...John Zuccarini
D/B/A Cupcake Patrol, WIPO Case No. D2001-
0491 ("initial interest confusion" of which the respondent took
advantage constituted bad faith).
Additionally, the Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s marks in the Domain Name is clearly sufficient evidence of the Respondent’s intent to attract confused Internet users to its site for commercial gain. ...
2003-10-27 - Case Details
The corollary, however, is that where the registrants are in fact the same person or they hold a common interest in the disputed domain name (see Kimberly-Clark, above, and Speedo Holdings B.V. v. Programmer, Miss Kathy Beckerson, John Smitt, Matthew Simmons,
WIPO Case No. ...The evidence on the record provided by Complainant with respect to the initial use of the disputed domain names and indicates that Respondent Mascall used them to attract, or to attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to various websites by creating confusion with Complainant’s trademark as to the affiliation of those websites.
...
2013-10-02 - Case Details
The addition of the generic word “wireless” does not eliminate the likelihood of initial confusion or association with the Complainant’s TDS marks, especially since the Complainant uses hundreds of domain names comprising those initials and one or more descriptive words, and the word “wireless” is in fact descriptive of a major portion of the Complainant’s communications business.
...Although her email messages do not elaborate on her relationship with the Respondent, it appears likely from the available record that the Respondent, which is the registrant as shown in the registrar’s WhoIs database, is identical with TDS Holdings L.L.C., and further that Ms. Slade has an interest in this company. In her initial email to the Center, Ms. Slade denied prior knowledge of the Complainant and stated that “[w]e started a small local service to sell home and internet service” in the Atlanta area. ...
2010-11-08 - Case Details
The Complainant urges a finding of bad faith, asserting that the Domain Name causes initial interest confusion and was formerly used for a website selling technology services competing with the Complainant’s.
...The Respondent denies any attempt to mislead Internet users and argues that the current and planned uses of the Domain Name would not infringe the Complainant’s trademark rights (assuming they were enforceable) because the Respondent’s businesses are in different trademark classes than the Complainant’s. This argument is not persuasive. By creating initial interest confusion, a Domain Name that is identical or confusingly similar to an established trademark may produce commercial gain even if the registrant is not competing in the same business as the Complainant. ...
2015-01-16 - Case Details
Complainant claims that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant, that Respondent is advertising, offering and selling counterfeit copies of Complainant’s products including P90x and Insanity branded DVDs and workout kits, and that Respondent is causing initial consumer confusion.
Third, Complainant contends that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith since Respondent used the website to which said domain names resolved to advertise, offer for sale and sell counterfeit copies of its products, including P90x and Insanity branded DVDs and workout kits. ...Therefore, Respondent was deriving advantage from initial interest confusion. The Panel accepts that such behaviour does not provide a right or legitimate interest for the purposes of the Policy, in accordance with previous UDRP panel decisions such as Mpire Corporation v. ...
2011-03-10 - Case Details
With regard to the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name, the Complainant submits that the inclusion of its mark SWAROVSKI in the Domain Name gives rise to “initial interest confusion” in that Internet users will be attracted to the Respondent’s website in the belief that it is authorised by or connected with the Complainant. ...Nevertheless, the Complainant argues that the Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name to confuse Internet users into believing that its website is an official site of the Complainant’s or is authorised by or connected with the Complainant. It makes this argument on the basis of both “initial interest confusion” and the fact that the Respondent’s website makes extensive use of the Complainant’s SWAROVSKI and “swan” trademarks and branding, without making clear that the Respondent is not connected with the Complainant.
...
2013-10-14 - Case Details
b) Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainants contend that the Respondent has no legitimate interest or rights in the domain names , and . ...FUENTE ANEJO and A. FUENTE SHORT STORY. The deletion of the initial letter “A.” does not serve to distinguish the domain names from the Complainants’ trademark in any meaningful way. ...
2007-09-19 - Case Details
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is likely to create confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship and services of Respondent’s websites.
Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name since Complainant has not licensed or otherwise consented to Respondent’s use of Complainant’s mark TABAKS HEALTH PRODUCTS.
...Texas International Property Associates,
WIPO Case No. D2007-0464.
Complainant has made out an initial prima facie case in its Complaint and supplemental brief that Respondent lacks any right or interest in the disputed domain name and has not provided bona fide offering of goods and services for the disputed domain name. ...
2007-08-22 - Case Details
This is typically explained by UDRP panels with reference to the probability of Internet user “initial interest confusion” - by the time such user reaches and reads any disclaimer under the domain name, any registrant objective of attracting visitors for financial advantage to its website through use of the trademark in the domain name will generally have been achieved. ...Indeed, the fact that the Respondent felt the need to publish the disclaimer also indicates its recognition of the fact that the disputed domain name has the potential to create a likelihood of confusion on the part of Internet users.
The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name is inherently likely to lead to “initial interest confusion” in the sense that Internet users will be drawn to the Respondent’ s website by the attractive force of the Complainants’ trademark. ...
2014-01-09 - Case Details
The Complainant considers that “the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks “T-Mobile” because contains the trademark textual expression, being insignificant to the UDRP ends the addition of the term “puertorico” and the use of lower case letter for the initial “T”. These differences to its trademark in the disputed domain name “cannot exclude the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks”.
...The Panel finds that the suppression of the dash that separates the initial “T” in the T-MOBILE trademark is inconsequential and that the addition of a term that refers to a territorial jurisdiction would induce Internet users confusion and further add to the Domain Name being confusingly similar with the Complainant's T-MOBILE trademarks. ...
2009-03-18 - Case Details
The Complainant considers that “the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks “T-Mobile” because contains the trademark textual expression, being insignificant to the UDRP ends the addition of the term “puertorico” and the use of lower case letter for the initial “T”. These differences to its trademark in the disputed domain name “cannot exclude the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademarks”.
...The Panel finds that the different capitalization in the Domain Name of the initial “T” in the T-MOBILE trademarks is inconsequential (among other reasons, because it is not technically possibile to use capital letters in domain names, that are not case sensitive) and that the addition of a term that alludes to a territorial jurisdiction would induce Internet user confusion and further add to the Domain Name being confusingly similar with the Complainant's T-MOBILE trademarks. ...
2009-03-18 - Case Details
The registration and use of the disputed domain name creates initial interest confusion among Internet users as a result of the Respondent’s purported affiliation with the Complainant;
ix. ...Furthermore, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to display PPC links exclusively related to jewellery items is conclusive evidence of bad faith use under Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv) above because first, the Respondent was collecting, or at least intended to collect, click-through fees, and second, the Respondent created initial confusion among Internet users who were attracted to a website providing access to goods in competition with those marketed by the Complainant under its SWAROVSKI mark. ...
2013-07-04 - Case Details
Moreover, the Complainant submitted evidence showing that the disputed domain name has been used
under a “bait and switch” model, and that this is a case of initial interest confusion. Internet users looking for
the Complainant’s restaurant services that come across the disputed domain name are redirected to a
website linked to the domain name , which is related to a pizza restaurant which offers
services that are in direct competition to those of the Complainant. ...D2013-0709
“In fact, the disputed domain name was also used in bad faith since in the redirected website, the
Respondent was offering various purported Complainant’s products knowingly taking advantage from the
initial interest confusion.”).
In light of the above, it can be deducted that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet
users to his website, for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s
trademark VAPIANO as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website
and restaurant, which constitutes bad faith use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
...
2023-01-26 - Case Details