Even if customers realize this is not Complainant’s website, they may stay and purchase lingerie and other apparel from Respondent for a variety of reasons including time constraints, laziness or impatience. The results of this "initial interest confusion" render any attempt to use disclaimer notices ineffective. Thus by using the Disputed Domain Name for financial gain, Respondent is intentionally attempting to detour Internet users to a website selling competing merchandise by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Registrant’s domain name and website to which traffic is diverted and products or services offered therein.
...Respondent’s website disclaimer of affiliation with Complainant cannot cure
the initial confusion generated through its Disputed Domain Name. (See The
New York Times Company v. New York Services, WIPO
Case No. ...
2002-09-18 - Case Details
Furthermore, it is submitted that Steggles has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name and finally, the domain name has been registered and is used in bad faith.
...He also submits as Annex 2 the first two pages of a website which according to him was launched by him in April 1999 but which was retired from its initial purpose due to the lack of interest of visitors. This website, for which the domain name www.steggles.net was used, indeed shows an offer for services with the heading "EasyJet Electrical Repairs". ...
2000-03-17 - Case Details
Complainant also questions the precautionary measures taken by Respondent and claims that the use of the
disputed domain name causes initial interest confusion as it is meant to entice users to click on links that
contain the disputed domain name. ...case=D2021-1565
page 5
Respondent notes that its educational simulated phishing attack program is effective, but notes that the
effectiveness of such is irrelevant under the Policy as a respondent does not have to prove the necessity of
its services in order to have a legitimate interest.
Respondent rejects Complainant's contentions of initial interest confusion as irrelevant as Respondent has
taken “precautionary steps to ensure that its registration and passive holding of the disputed domain name in
connection with security awareness training would not result in any commercial harm to Complainant”.
...
2026-05-21 - Case Details
Further, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not commonly known or identified by the domain names, has not used the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names. The Complainant argues that the “initial interest confusion” arising from the Respondent’s use of the domain names precludes any legitimate or noncommercial fair use under the Policy.
...Nevertheless, other U.S. based panelists, noting that
the Policy’s ultimate concern is the potential for false and misleading
association, have applied an initial interest confusion approach, concluding
that a respondent cannot have a legitimate interest in using a domain name identical
to the complainant’s mark, regardless of the content of the respondent’s
website. ...
2006-09-04 - Case Details
Addressing Respondent’s use of a disclaimer, Complainant first alleges that the damage resulting from user confusion is already done by the time users view Respondent’s webpage and disclaimer (“initial interest confusion”). ...D2009-0693 (rejecting parody argument on basis that disputed domain name was identical to the complainant’s service mark, suggesting transformation of the marks would be necessary to find parody).
5 In any case, the Panel also notes that due to the similarity in appearance between Respondent’s and Complainant’s websites and the links at the top of Respondent’s page reading “The Real Story of Walmart” and “The Walmart Experience”, an Internet user’s confusion about the authenticity of the website extends beyond initial interest confusion. E.g., Union Square Partnership, Inc., Union Square Partnership District Management Association, Inc. v. unionsquarepartnership.com Private Registrant and unionsquarepartnership.org Private Registrant,
WIPO Case No. ...
2013-10-21 - Case Details
West Coast Entertainment Group, 174 F.3d. 1036 (9th Cir.
1999) (finding initial interest confusion in use of trademarks). See also
Gilmour v. Ermanno Cenicolla, WIPO Case
No. ...Second,
a disclaimer does nothing to dispel initial interest confusion that is inevitable
from Respondent’s actions. Such confusion is a basis for finding a violation
of Complainant’s rights.
...
2001-06-07 - Case Details
Due to the confusingly similar nature of the Domain Name to Complainant’s trademarks and domain names, it is likely that there will be consumer confusion. Respondent’s use of the Domain Name intentionally attracts Internet users to Respondent’s website for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademarks as to the affiliation of the website and Domain Name.
...Therefore, the Panelist finds that Complainant has complied with article 2.1(a) of the Regulations.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interest
According to article 2.1(b) of the Regulations, Complainant must demonstrate that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. ...
2011-12-29 - Case Details
page 3
- Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia,
“Complainant has never assigned, granted, licensed, sold, transferred or in any way authorized the
Respondent to register or use the ATW PARTNERS Marks in any manner, and Respondent has no
relationship whatsoever with Complainant”; and “Respondent’s communication with the job applicant clearly
‘misleadingly diverts consumers’ under the doctrine 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’”...case=D2020-3235
page 4
job applicant clearly ‘misleadingly diverts consumers’ under the doctrine 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’”.
...
2025-08-20 - Case Details
In addition, Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the domain name. The registration of CARREFOUR trademarks preceded the registration of the disputed domain name for years, even decades”. ...That makes sense irrespective of the fact that the initial Respondent was the provider of a privacy shield service, based in Panama.
As a result of the information provided by the Registrar when the Complaint was filed, we know that the actual Respondent is an individual domiciled in France. ...
2018-09-03 - Case Details
The trademark is used in relation to psychotropic medications. The initial registration in Switzerland is dated November 20, 1961 which constitutes the priority date of the registration. ...In this case, the Respondent apparently intends to take advantage of the confusion of internet users that will result from the incorporation of the trademark into the domain name. ...
2007-08-22 - Case Details
Factual Background
The Disputed Domain Name was created on August 7, 2006. The initial registrant was Look Up Pty Ltd. The son of the directors of Respondent, Antony Ceravalo, was listed as the registrant contact of the Disputed Domain Name from July 26, 2009. ...At present, I have no plans to sell this domain as I have use for it in our Group. What is your interest in the domain?
Regards
Antony
Nathan Smith to Antony Ceravolo dated February 11, 2010
Antony
Thanks for your prompt response. ...
2012-09-28 - Case Details
“The Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interest in respect to the domain names…because Respondent has adopted domain names that are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks and creating confusion in the marketplace with consumers who are likely to believe that the goods being offered on the webpages at the complained of domain names are sponsored by or originate from Complainant.” ...Unlike trademark law in the United States, actual confusion need not be proven to satisfy this provision.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests.
This Policy element requires Complainant to prove a negative. ...
2011-01-27 - Case Details
Respondent then submits that it is up to Complainant to demonstrate that Respondent has a total lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and not merely that Complainant might have a “better” legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Respondent then further submits that a three-letter common acronym should necessarily give rise to a right or legitimate interest, and that many short combinations of letters have been held to be generic, or otherwise confer a legitimate interest therein. ...Complainant has the burden of proving that Respondent has no legitimate interest in the Domain Name, not of convincing the Panel that Complainant has more of an interest than Respondent in the Domain Name.
...
2011-05-25 - Case Details
Thus, it appears that Respondent registered the domain name to profit from visitors intending to visit Complainant’s websites, at a minimum, by creating “initial interest confusion.”
When Complainant objected to Respondent’s registration and use of the domain names in a letter dated July 23, 2007, Respondent denied any wrongdoing, but proposed to sell the domain name to Complainant or to transfer it in exchange for tickets to the PGA Championship. ...Because the site has not been developed, there can be no misdirected Internet traffic. Nor can there be “initial interest confusion” when a Google search for “pga2012” reveals seven responses, none of which are related to golf.
...
2007-11-13 - Case Details
Previous UDRP panels have accepted that “[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.” ...
2015-03-09 - Case Details
Factual Background
The Complainant is a Brazilian government-owned federal saving account bank, incorporated on January 12, 1861, in the city of Rio de Janeiro. The Complainant’s initial mission was to grant loans and support public savings. During the year of 1874, the Complainant started its expansion throughout Brazil. ...Finally, and this forms the basis of many decisions under the Policy, the Panel
fails to see how the public interest would be best served by leaving the domain
name with the Respondent, with a likelihood of confusion, no evidence of a legitimate
interest and evidence of registering an intent to sell. ...
2003-06-30 - Case Details
The correct domain is used in the Complaint.
It is just this form of confusion which the Respondent continually takes advantage
of for his commercial well being.
6.15 In this case there is evidence specific to confusion on the part
of visitors to the site. ...Clue Computing, Inc., as above, "recognize[d] a brand
of confusion called ‘initial interest’ confusion although the consumer quickly
becomes aware of the source’s actual identity and no purchase is made as a result
of the confusion". ...
2001-06-08 - Case Details
The disputed domain name incorporates the ALDI sign in conjunction with “south” which enhances the confusion.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. ...The disputed domain name incorporates that trademark in its entirety as its initial element, and combines it with “south”, which is identical to the name of the Complainant’s corporate group, “Aldi South”. ...
2020-02-10 - Case Details
SBG contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the SOFTBANK Mark because it incorporates the entirety of the SOFTBANK Mark, with the addition of the gTLD “.com” and the term “ipo-” which is descriptive as the abbreviation for an “initial public offering” which SBG announced in the press release dated November 12, 2018.
Numerous UDRP decisions have recognized that incorporating a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark and that the addition of descriptive words, including gTLDs does not eliminate the likelihood of confusion. ...Respondent has not contested the allegations that it lacks rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name.
Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainants have satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
...
2019-01-16 - Case Details
The Respondent expressed concern over the possibility of confusion between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s “.com” domain names and asked what issues the Complainant had as a result of this. ...The Respondent personally has no connection with the tobacco business but the initial rationale for the Domain Name registration was due to his client’s tobacco business. The Respondent has a legitimate interest in the Domain Name due to the nature of Mr. ...
2010-11-04 - Case Details