The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an initial prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or interests in the disputed domain name. In its response, the Respondent did not attempt to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. ...The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name was being used to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website that the Respondent had an interest in by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website.
...
2008-06-20 - Case Details
Internet users presented with the disputed domain names in
search engine results are likely to believe that they are run by, connected with, or authorised by the
Complainant. Such initial interest confusion is indicative of bad faith. Any initial interest confusion is
reinforced, rather than dispelled, when Internet users reach the websites associated with the disputed
domain names. The Respondent’s websites do not display any kind of disclaimer and have not undertaken
any other reasonable steps to avoid confusion between them and the Complainant. Instead, the Respondent
intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the
Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the websites, which appear
to operate as a login portal prominently displaying the Complainant’s branding. ...
2026-09-08 - Case Details
The Respondent asserts that it has never intended to use the Complainant's trademark ASCOM and explains that the name Ascom was selected since the letter "a" stands for the initial of the name of the Respondent's father, the letter "s" for the initial of its family name the "com" for its trading activities on computer and peripherals.
...It further states that the name "Ascom" was coined by the Respondent, and that the letter "a" stands for the initial of the name of the Respondent's father, the letter "s" for the initial of its family name and the three letters "com" for its trading activities on computer and peripherals.
...
2014-08-01 - Case Details
collectively the “Registrars”).
3. Procedural History
The initial Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 15, 2019 against three domain name registrants as a single respondent: a privacy service “Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org” of the United States, a privacy service “WhoisGuard, Inc.” of Panama and a registrant from the Netherlands whose publicly-available WhoIs information was masked (the “Initial Respondent”).
...In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent, the Registrars, the Reseller and the Initial Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 30, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 19, 2019.
...
2019-04-02 - Case Details
Factual Background
Complainant, a dental practice with offices in Madison and Sun Prairie, Wisconsin,1 asserts it started using
the trademark NO FEAR DENTISTRY (hereinafter the “Mark”), in 2005 through its predecessors in interest.
Complainant owns United States Trademark Registration No. 4,583,812 (filed December 18, 2013 and
registered August 12, 2014). ...The Panel is not persuaded that Respondent’s “initial use with a competitor” is evidence of bad faith.
The fact that Respondent’s licensee was a dentist is not relevant to the fundamental issue—whether
Respondent was aware of Complainant’s rights when he registered the Disputed Domain Name in 2014.
...
2026-03-27 - Case Details
The Respondent’s registration
of the disputed domain name and use of the domain name causes or is likely to
cause consumer initial interest confusion [1].
Legitimacy
The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has
not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use the Complainant’s
marks in a domain name or in any other manner.
...Panelist
Dated: October 1, 2001
Footnotes:
1. For the concept of "initial interest confusion,"
see Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d
1036 (9th Cir. 1999).
2. ...
2001-10-08 - Case Details
Identification of Respondent or Respondents
An initial search of the Whois database by the Complainant showed the apparent registrant to be “Privacyprotect.Org”, which is a service that allows registrants to protect their identity. ...Thus, the Respondent is trading illegitimately on the Complainant’s trademarks in order to attract visitors by initial interest confusion as to the affiliation or endorsement of the websites. The Panel finds registration and use of the disputed domain names in bad faith to be proven in the terms of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
...
2008-05-28 - Case Details
By using the entirety of the Complainant’s GTA trade mark, the Respondent clearly intends to capitalize on the initial interest confusion as to source, sponsorship or affiliation of the Respondent’s website.
The Respondent’s bad faith is evidenced by its attempt to confuse Internet users for its own commercial gain through phishing and by its calculated attempt to foreclose the Complainant from promoting its products on the Internet. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that the circumstances of this case show clear bad faith registration and use, and a deceptive intent by the Respondent to confuse and mislead Internet users, through initial interest confusion and through apparent phishing activities. The screen shot of the Respondent’s website submitted by the Complainant in evidence reflected, inter alia, the following text:
“Grand Theft Auto V Beta version is now available for download!
...
2013-07-10 - Case Details
Complainant finally maintains that Respondent's registration and use of the domain name is in bad faith because the web site: (1) creates a likelihood of confusion between the domain name and Complainant's famous marks; (2) dilutes and tarnishes Complainant's famous marks; and (3) attracts, for commercial gain, Internet users to the web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's marks. ...Absence of any right or interest on the part of Respondent may be of assistance in determining bad faith registration and use, and bad faith registration and use may be of assistance in determining the legitimacy of the claimed right or interest." ...
2002-04-18 - Case Details
Respondent’s use of a disclaimer does not dispel the initial confusion that results from its use of the Domain Name.
In its Supplemental Filing, Complainant states that Respondent misrepresents its past actions to the Panel by stating “Respondent never offered the domain name for sale.” ...Respondent states that 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. ...
2016-11-03 - Case Details
With regard to the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name, the Complainant submits that the inclusion of its trademark 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 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.
...
2013-10-07 - Case Details
D2001-1097.
2. Does Respondent have no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name?
Coupled with proper inferences arising from Respondent’s default, Complainant’s assertions provide adequate evidence that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name . ...However, it is not necessary for this panel to determine whether
the Respondent’s complaints are legitimate. Respondent has no right to cause
confusion using another’s registered trademark in order to voice his concerns
or opinions regarding the Complainant. ...
2003-02-05 - Case Details
An identical or confusingly similar domain name may still create “initial interest confusion” among some Internet users and thereby divert traffic to the Respondent’s or a third party’s websites. ...D2004-0988, and cases cited therein (“The content of the respondent’s website is not material to the question of confusing similarity for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(i)”; “The disclaimer on the Respondent’s website does nothing to dispel initial interest confusion”); Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Limited v. Dejan Macesic,
WIPO Case No. ...
2007-09-28 - Case Details
Complainant argues that the fact that Respondent dropped the silent “e” from the end of “Smithe” does nothing to reduce consumer confusion.
Complainant argues that Respondent has absolutely no rights or legitimate interest in the contested domain name. ...Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel notes the following particular circumstances of this case:
(i) Complainant’s trademark has a strong reputation and is widely known in the United States, especially in the furniture business;
(ii) Respondent has provided no evidence whatsoever of any good faith use by it of the disputed domain name, and has not participated in this proceeding even though properly notified thereof;
(iii) the disputed domain name at present resolves to a website with several links to several furniture retailers, who are competitors to the Complainant, which demonstrates bad-faith use and registration under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy because Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion, including initial interest confusion, as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website.
...
2006-08-18 - Case Details
The Complainant additionally alleges that Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain
page 3
Name to redirect consumers to the Respondent’s In Harmony Music website constitutes bad faith because it
creates initial interest confusion and disrupts the Complainant’s business.
B. Respondent
The Respondent contends that the Complainant has not satisfied the elements required under the Policy for
a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name.
...Finally, the Complainant argues that “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 MUSIC TOGETHER Mark.” ...
2024-04-10 - Case Details
D2003-0248.
4 This view seems to
have found greater initial acceptance among U.S. based panelists, in recognition
of the “robust free speech tradition” of the United States reflected
in the First Amendment. ...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. ...
2007-04-23 - Case Details
The Domain Name was registered on May 15, 2006. It appears that the initial registrar of the Domain Name was an entity called DOMIBOT. The Complainant sent DOMIBOT a letter demanding, inter alia, that DOMIBOT withdraw registration of the Domain Name. ...We accept the contention that the omission of the letter “t” in the word “TRANSPORTATION” would generally cause confusion with a name of the same two words “veolia” and “TRANSPORTATION”. In the present case, the removal of the “t” does not change the substance of the domain name or remove the similarity or confusion with VEOLIA TRANSPORTATION. ...
2006-11-14 - Case Details
Furthermore, the Respondent cannot claim prior rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name, as the
Trade Marks precede the registration of the Domain Name for many years. ...page 4
In conclusion, it is more likely than not, that the Respondent’s primary motive in registering and using the
Domain Name was to capitalize on or otherwise take advantage of the Trade Marks through the creation of
initial interest of confusion.
Consequently, it is established that the Respondent both registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith
in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
...
2023-10-19 - Case Details
The Respondent argues that nobody visiting the site will believe it to be a site associated in any way with the Complainant. That may be so, but by then the confusion (initial interest confusion) will already have occurred.
The point is made in the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, which is to be found on the Center's website. ...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. ...
2009-03-18 - Case Details
The information provided above suggests that there is no legitimate interest in the Domain Name. If there had been a legitimate interest there would be a genuine business operating from the Domain Name.
...Turning to bad faith registration, the Panel notes that the Domain Name was registered (in September 2001) before incorporation of the Complainant’s predecessor (in November 2001), before the initial publicity (in October 2001) and first use (in May 2002) of the Trademark, and before the first registration (in July 2002) of the Trademark. ...
2013-12-11 - Case Details