On the other hand, if there is no intent for commercial gain, the application of paragraph 4(c)(iii) is not precluded by the fact that there is initial confusion which could be characterized as “misleading diversion” or criticism which might be said to “tarnish” the mark. ...While unfair competition laws, such as the UK law of passing off, may extend to non-commercial use (see Burge v Haycock [2002] RPC 28), initial interest confusion which is immediately disabused is not normally sufficient to give rise to liability, at any rate where the use is non-commercial: see Cadbury-Schweppes v Pub-Squash [1981] RPC 429, BP Amoco plc v. ...
2007-11-30 - Case Details
The use of a disclaimer on the Spunlock Website does not prevent confusion among Internet users. The disclaimer does not accompany the Domain Name, which attracts the consumer’s initial interest, and the consumer is misdirected long before he/she has the opportunity to see the disclaimer (citing AltaVista Company v Astavista.com, National Arbitration Forum Case No.95251, and DaimlerChrysler Corporation v. ...The disputed domain name attracts the consumer’s initial interest, and the consumer is misdirected long before he/she has the opportunity to see the disclaimer.
9. ...
2008-08-08 - Case Details
D2000-0607
2 Manipulative Metatagging, Search Engine Baiting, and Initial Interest Confusion
3 ISL Marketing AG, and The Federation Internationale de Football Association v. ...
2001-10-09 - Case Details
Jeff Walter, supra, the panel rejected the respondent’s argument of initial good faith registration and further found that the respondent’s alteration of the content of the website at a critical juncture confirmed the suspicious explanation for the initial registration. ...D2009-0786, the panel similarly rejected the Respondent’s claims of initial good faith registration after reviewing early content of the website at issue on the Internet Archive WayBack Machine. ...
2011-11-30 - Case Details
It is worth mentioning that the vast majority of cases decided to date by panels under the “initial confusion” type rationale appear to concern domain names falling into this identical ‘trademark.com’ category.
...The potential degree of initial confusion needs to be considered in the particular factual circumstances of the case while keeping in mind the Policy’s aims.”
6.40 The panel then goes on to consider in what circumstances the addition of a “modifier” may result in the respondent being able to claim a right or legitimate interest. ...
2008-01-31 - Case Details
The Panel is satisfied that complainant has made out an initial prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. ...The Panel concludes that the evidence supports a finding that Respondent registered and used the domain name to benefit from initial interest confusion and potential mistyping of . The timing of the registration of the disputed domain name and its coupling of the term “buzz” to the SUBWAY trademark at the same time that Complainant began to use FRESHBUZZ indicates an intent to attract Internet users to Respondent’s website for commercial gain. ...
2007-09-12 - Case Details
This would appear not to have been the underlying registrant, but the name of a privacy service.
3.2 On March 29, 2012 the Center sent a verification request by email to the Initial Registrar.
3.3 No response having been received from the Initial Registrar by April 5, 2012 the Center sent a further email on that date asking the Initial Registrar to respond to that request.
3.4 No response having been received from the Initial Registrar by April 12, 2012 the Center sent a further email on that date asking the Initial Registrar to respond to that request.
3.5 No response having been received from the Initial Registrar by April 16, 2012 the Center sent a further email seeking a response as a matter of urgency and informing the Initial Registrar that unless a response was forthcoming by April 17, 2012 the Center would proceed without the Initial Registrar’s response.
3.6 The Initial Registrar finally responded to the verification request by email on April 17, 2012 apologising for the “late reply”. ...iv) On March 29, 2012 the Center sent a verification request by email to the Initial Registrar.
(v) No response having been received from the Initial Registrar by April 5, 2012 the Center sent a further email on that date asking the Initial Registrar to respond to that request.
...
2012-07-18 - Case Details
Complainant further submits that even where there is no such misleading association by consumers, there is initial interest confusion. Initial interest confusion arises when the junior user adopts a senior user’s mark to gain attention in a crowded field in the hope of attracting “a first look.” Such confusion is actionable under U.S. trademark law.
Complainant submits that bad faith is found when “it appears more likely than not from the evidence offered by complainant, that respondent has registered the domain name in a deliberate attempt to attract users to its planned web site for commercial gain due to confusion with Complainant’s mark (InfoSpace.com, Inc v. ...
2007-10-24 - Case Details
As a matter of fact, the combination of “gap” or “baby gap” with “clothing”, “fashion”, “coupon” or “big” creates an immediate potential for false association with the GAP trademark and brand name, and a high degree of initial confusion. See adidas-Salomon AG v. Digi Real Estate Foundation, Patrick Williamson,
WIPO Case No. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its well-known CLARITIN Mark and that it is being used primarily to divert Internet traffic for commercial gain, profiting from the initial confusion on the part of the public.
The Panel finds that the entity that registered the Domain Name, be it the named Respondent or an unknown third party who has used the named Respondent’s identity without his permission, knew or must have known of the existence of Complainant and the CLARITIN Mark at the time the Domain Name was registered. ...
2012-06-07 - Case Details
The many cases cited by the Respondent might well exonerate him from liability under the Lanham Act and the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA),3 especially if his site is considered bona fide noncommercial use, but that is not for this Panel to determine. The Panel also considered the US doctrine of “initial interest confusion”. Without going into full discussion, the doctrine appears to be inapplicable in this case because of the non commercial context4.
...Kremer, 403 F.3d 672, 680 (9th Cir., 2005).
4 See Confusion in Cyberspace: Defending and Recalibrating the Initial Interest Confusion Doctrine, 117 HARV. ...
2005-08-15 - Case Details
The Panel finds that all of these factors support the Respondent's claims in this case to a legitimate interest in registering and using the Domain Names for a criticism website.
The Panel concludes that the likelihood of confusion as to source or sponsorship in this case, while sufficient to meet the threshold requirement for standing under the first element of the Complaint, is relatively slight. ...The Respondent's website does not mimic the Complainant's website, and its content is clearly critical of the Complainant. The slight likelihood of initial interest confusion, readily corrected once an Internet user reaches the website itself, does not outweigh the Respondent's legitimate interest in referring to the Complainant by its company name, Nix Solutions, in both Domain Names. ...
2014-10-17 - Case Details
Other decisions have held that the focus should be on the domain name itself, and find (relying on initial interest confusion analysis) no rights or legitimate interests where the domain name itself is confusing when viewed alone, in isolation from content pages. ...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. ...
2011-01-27 - Case Details
Given how long, widely, and well the famous AOL marks are known, a reasonable Web user is likely to think that is a domain name for an African branch or subsidiary of AOL.
Rights or Legitimate Interest
This element of AOL’s case presents some difficulty because AOL only makes a conclusory assertion that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect to the disputed domain name but proffers no evidence, direct or circumstantial, to support this assertion. ...Since that evidence is typically in the Respondent’s, not the Complainant’s, possession, and the UDRP affords no discovery, it is the former who should bear the initial burden of proffering it and the latter should only have the burden of rebuttal.
This allocation of the initial burden is consistent with Paragraph 5 of the Policy, which does not permit the Respondent to merely deny the allegations of the Complaint but, rather, affirmatively obligates him to respond specifically and to lay out all bases for retaining the registration and use of the disputed domain name. ...
2001-04-11 - Case Details
The Complainant further claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the
Disputed Domain Name as, in summary:
- to the best of the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent does not hold any trademarks or other
intellectual property rights in any of the Complainant’s trademarks;
- the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves/resolved is a page that purportedly offers
banking and financial services and includes a link to a “Sign in” page, suggesting that the website is
attempting to fraudulently obtain the banking information of visitors to the website;
page 3
- even if the content of the website were not related to banking and financial services, the Disputed
Domain Name would, at the very least, cause initial interest confusion because a user of the website will,
based on the Disputed Domain Name alone, be visiting the website in the expectation that it is an official
website of the Complainant and likely be a potential customer looking for banking or financial services.
...In summary, according to the Complainant:
- the Respondent acquired the Disputed Domain Name for the purpose of unfairly disrupting the
business of the Complainant by deceiving customers into believing either that the Disputed Domain Name is
one of the Complainant’s official websites or that the Disputed Domain Name is authorised by, or otherwise
connected with, the Complainant;
- given the considerable reputation of the Complainant in the provision of financial and banking
services, it is inconceivable that the Disputed Domain Name could have been registered by the Respondent
in ignorance of the Complainant, and without the intention of taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s
trademarks;
- the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name would, at the very least, cause initial interest
confusion because of its similarity to the Complainant’s trademarks.
The Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name has also prevented the Complainant from
registering a domain name which corresponds to the Complainant’s trademarks contrary to paragraph 4(b)(ii)
of the Policy.
...
2026-04-07 - Case Details
Mari Gomez,
WIPO Case No. D2007-1231), and may increase customer confusion that the disputed domain name is somehow licensed or controlled by the Complainant”. Mandarin Oriental Services B.V. v. ...D2014-0888 (“use of the Disputed Domain Name to redirect to Complainant’s own website only serves to increase customer confusion that the Disputed Domain Name is somehow licensed or controlled by Complainant”); The Sportsman’s Guide, Inc. v. ...
2020-08-21 - Case Details
- The Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant by registering a domain name
that fully incorporates the CAPCUT trademark with the Respondent, attempting to profit from such
confusion by displaying the Complainant’s CAPCUT trademark and logo in a brand-like manner and
purporting to be a fan website that allows users to download the unauthorized CapCut app, and
attempting to cause consumer confusion in a nefarious attempt to profit from such confusion.
- The Respondent, at the time of initial filing of the Complaint, had employed a privacy service to hide its
identity.
B. Respondent
Although properly summoned, the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. ...
2022-11-28 - Case Details
Because of the timing of this change in the registrant data, and in the absence of an explanation from Respondent, the Panel does not consider the real party in interest Respondent to have changed as a consequence of the update. For the sake of completeness and to assure that any order to transfer covers the intended Respondent, the Panel identifies the initial registrant information, “Registrant [1370348]: Privacy Admin”, and the updated registrant information, “Registrant [709764]: Gregory, Ricks”, as the Respondent in this proceeding. ...The initial record of registration of the disputed domain name was created on March 21, 1996. There is insufficient evidence in this proceeding for a determination whether Respondent was the initial registrant in 1996 of the disputed domain name. ...
2008-12-12 - Case Details
Thus, Respondent does not have any legitimate interest in the Domain Names under the Policy."
Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith. Complainant argues that Respondent "re-registered" the disputed domain names after the initial registration had lapsed, and only after receiving notice of Complainant’s "plans to adopt and use the mark VERINT". ...
2002-12-04 - Case Details
The Center sent an email communication to the parties on May 16, 2013 regarding the multiple underlying registrants of the two domain names filed in the initial Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to their initial Complaint by removing one of the domain names from the initial Complaint.
...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Policy indicates in paragraph 4(b)(iv) that bad faith registration and use can be found in the use of a domain name, with an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location.
...
2013-07-23 - Case Details
(2) The Whois Database print out for the Domain Name at issue on October 12, 2001, annexed to the initial Complaint, gave the Registrant’s name as Giovanni Bertotto and the Registrant Organisation as Excelsa Coop of the above address. ...Bertotto, who is the individual now claiming authority to act for it, were the initial registrants. The Response has said nothing to explain the initial naming of Mr. Trabalza or why his E-mail on behalf of the registrants should be regarded as sent without authority. ...
2002-01-22 - Case Details