“TechnicalPackagingService”). Recognizing that as a matter of “initial interest” an Internet user viewing the Domain Names might have an impression that they are associated with the Complainant, upon redirection to the website of the Respondent that impression is dispelled. Initial interest confusion is not in itself sufficient to negate a finding of fair use.
The Respondent’s website identifies the Complainant’s products, but it would be extraordinarily difficult for the Respondent to offer services for the repair of the Complainant’s products if it could not identify them. ...
2019-03-18 - Case Details
It argues that the minor variation between its trademark and the domain name by the omission of the letter “s” does nothing to distinguish the two or remove confusion. On the contrary, it contends the disputed domain name is an example of “typosquatting” designed to be confusing and profit by confusion. ...The facts and circumstances outlined above are evidence of precisely this kind of conduct, namely, this is an obvious instance of “typosquatting” where the Respondent has deliberately selected a domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark with a view to attracting traffic to a website and seeking to profit commercially from that ruse. As previous panel decisions have found, the initial interest confusion – notwithstanding it may be quickly dispelled on perusing the website linked to it – is sufficient to warrant a finding of bad faith use and registration: eg: National Football League Properties, Inc. and Chargers Football Company v. ...
2007-11-09 - Case Details
Complainant further alleges Respondent’s bad faith by noting that Respondents initial email appears to seek a monetary payment for sale of the Domain Name to Complainant, without any suggestion from Complainant.
...Finally, Complainant’s last submission alleges that Respondents initial email appears to seek a monetary payment for sale of the Domain Name to Complainant, without any suggestion from Complainant. ...
2005-12-12 - Case Details
The Complainant argues that its AIR FRANCE trademark is the only distinctive element of the Domain Name and that the mere addition of a generic or descriptive term does not eliminate the risk of confusion with the Complainant's well-known trademark.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name. ...The panelist suggested, however, that “[h]ad this request been made shortly after the filing of the initial complaint, then the amendment likely would have been acceptable, as it would have caused neither prejudice nor delay.” ...
2008-10-23 - Case Details
It seems that I missed the legal deadline, however, I will submit a response …”. An initial online response was submitted by way of a Supplemental Filing on November 9, 2009 and a revised response was submitted by way of an Amended Supplemental Filing on November 12, 2009. ...Finally, given that the disputed domain name was registered more than seven years before the registration, and approximately one year before the first demonstrated use in commerce, of the Complainant's trademark, the Respondent could not have had actual knowledge of the Complainant's trademark until a significant time after registration and initial use of the domain name. (For this reason, in this particular case, the second factor listed above is neutral with respect to whether the Respondent has a legitimate right or interest in the disputed domain name – although there is no evidence that the Respondent makes efforts to avoid registering domain names that conflict with trademarks, in this instance any such efforts would have been fruitless as the Complainant's trademark was not in existence at the time the Respondent registered the disputed domain name.)
...
2009-12-28 - Case Details
Complainant has alleged that Respondent has no legitimate interest in the Infringing Domain Name. Respondent has no relationship to the Complainant or the marks comprising the Infringing Domain Name.
...“[i]t is highly unlikely that Respondent was unaware of this well-known trademark when it first registered the domain name […] the Respondent did not have his own legitimate interest in the name ― rather, his interest in the name was due to its proximity to Complainant's high-traffic “nasdaq.com” site.”).
...
2009-05-14 - 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 website. 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 website because of its purported affiliation with the Complainant. ...
2013-03-05 - Case Details
Under Policy precedent the date of Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, not its initial creation date in 2004, is the date used to determine whether registration and use of the disputed domain name was in bad faith.
...The Ninth Circuit declined to follow that reasoning, concluding that Congress in enacting ACPA had meant to address only the initial registration:
We see no basis in ACPA to conclude that a right that belongs to an initial registrant of a currently registered domain name is lost when that name is transferred to another owner. ...
2011-11-10 - Case Details
Despite the failure of the Complainants to provide more than the bare minimum of argument under this element, the only inference which the Panel can reasonably draw from the circumstances surrounding the registration and use of the domain name is that the Respondent intended to divert Internet users to the Respondent’s website by relying on initial interest confusion in the minds of those users as to the trade source of the products promoted on the Respondent’s website. ...D2002-1128, found that the deliberate creation of initial confusion and the consequent diversion of Internet traffic is sufficient to establish bad faith on the Respondent’s part notwithstanding that the users who have visited the Respondent’s site might not be confused into believing that it was the Complainant’s site.
...
2007-10-10 - Case Details
The Complainant states the Respondent's use of its MARLBORO mark in connection with the Domain Name will inevitably create "initial interest confusion" as to the ownership of the Domain Name.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name (paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).
...In particular, the Panel infers that by causing "initial interest confusion" as to the origin of the Domain Name, the Respondent intended to attract Internet users to its website in the mistaken belief that they were accessing a website owned or operated by the Complainant. ...
2014-06-25 - Case Details
· The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's own domain names and trademarks and is likely to cause confusion among Complainants customers.
· Respondent has no connection or affiliation with Complainant and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use the MICROSOFT mark in a domain name and, therefore, has no legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.
· Respondent's initial use of the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to his commercial website which purported to offer web hosting services among other things was not a legitimate use. ...More specifically, the addition of a top-level generic domain name does not
create a new trademark or avoid confusion. America Online, Inc. v. Yeteck
Communication, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0055
(April 23, 2001).
...
2004-05-04 - Case Details
Due to its confusing similarity to the trademark, the disputed domain name causes initial interest confusion and attracts customers to the Respondent’s website for commercial gain. The confusion is further enhanced, as the links placed by the Respondent are in the same or similar area of medical supplies such as the Complainant’s business, such as ostomy care; wound care urology and incontinence supplies. Deliberately diverting customers by creating initial interest confusion and disrupting the Complainant’s business by the registration and use of a domain name in which the Complainant has rights, amounts to bad faith argues the Complainant.
...
2014-03-05 - Case Details
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
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.” ...
2015-05-11 - Case Details
Such use constitutes a use in bad faith pursuant to the policy;
- The clear inference to be drawn from the Respondent’s operations is that he is trying to benefit from the fame of the Complainant’s trademarks;
- It is more likely than not, that the Respondent’s primary motive in registering and using the disputed domain names was to capitalize on or otherwise take advantage of the Complainant’s trademark rights, through the creation of initial interest of confusion with the Complainant's marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website;
- Moreover, email servers have been configured on the disputed domain names and thus, there might be a risk that the Respondent is engaged in a phishing scheme;
- Therefore, the use of an email address with the disputed domain names presents a significant risk where the Respondent could aim at stealing valuable information such as credit cards from the Complainant’s clients or employees. ...Moreover, the Panel agrees that it is likely that, at all times, the Respondent was aware that the Complainant and its trademarks enjoyed a substantial reputation worldwide and that the Respondent’s primary motive in registering and using the disputed domain names was to capitalize on or otherwise take advantage of the Complainant’s trademark rights, through the creation of initial interest of confusion with the Complainant's marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website.
...
2021-08-03 - Case Details
Another common rationale is based on the doctrine of “initial interest
confusion” in trademark law, and suggests that, even if an Internet searcher
sees and understands the derogatory meaning of the additional words, the user
may be curious enough to follow a link to the domain name anyway, and that the
respondent will thus have achieved its objective of diverting potential customers
of the complainant by use of the complainant’s trademarks. ...In this case, however, no showing has been made as
to initial interest confusion or its potential significance. Cf. America
Online, Inc. v. Johuathan Investments, Inc., supra (“If there
is any confusion, it will be because people expecting to visit a protest site
will find themselves at a porn site.”). ...
2006-05-15 - Case Details
In view of the undisputed facts and circumstances in the record, the Panel is persuaded that the Respondent most likely registered the disputed domain name in order to trade on the initial interest confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s mark and divert Internet users to the Respondent’s website. ...The Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name manifests a clear intent to capitalize on or otherwise take advantage of the Complainant’s trademark rights, through the creation of initial interest confusion. The Respondent, as a purported reseller of the Complainant’s products, wholly failed to disclose its relationship with the Complainant, even after clearly being placed on notice by the Complainant on more than one occasion. ...
2011-05-23 - Case Details
The Respondent, according to the Complaint, registered and used the Domain Names in bad faith, attempting to create “initial interest confusion” to bring consumers to the Respondent’s websites and divert sales from the Complainant.
...The home pages of the Respondent’s websites in some cases included photographs labeled with the Complainant’s name, thus reinforcing the initial interest confusion created by the Domain Names themselves. Website visitors were then led to the Respondent’s links and its competing commercial offers.
...
2010-09-03 - Case Details
Similarity Between Domain Names and Trademark
In this case, I find that the domain name "twilightzone.com" is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark THE TWILIGHT ZONE. The initial article "the" is not a distinguishing feature: it is likely to be overlooked by most consumers. ...Here, it is apparent that Respondent’s initial registration of the disputed domain name was made in bad faith under the terms of the current policy. ...
2000-07-11 - Case Details
It is more likely than not, that the Domain Holder’s primary motive in registering and using the disputed domain names was to capitalize on or otherwise take advantage of the Petitioner’ trademark rights, through the creation of initial interest confusion.
Finally, the Petitioner states that the Domain Holder has no rights or justified interests in the disputed domain names, as the Domain Holder is identified as P. ...It proves the Domain Holder has no legitimate interest in the disputed domain names, since its purpose is to benefit from the sale of these domain names, fitted with the notoriety of the MICHELIN trademarks.
...
2018-08-07 - Case Details