Finally, Complainant
argues that all of the authority cited by Respondent is distinguishable because the relevant disputed domain
names clearly indicated on their face that they were used for review or criticism by adding terms like “review”
or “sucks”, or because the complainant failed to make an initial prima facie showing under the first or second
element of the Policy.
page 4
Complainant argues that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith for
numerous reasons, including: (i) Respondent’s intent to use the disputed domain name to create initial
interest confusion with Complainant amongst Internet users; (ii) Respondent’s actual knowledge of
Complainant’s trademark rights prior to registering the disputed domain name; (iii) Respondent’s registration
of the disputed domain name “out of spite, after tensions escalated between herself and Complainant” to
“lure and trick consumers into visiting her website under the belief that consumers would be visiting a
legitimate website pertaining to Complainants goods and services”; (iv) Respondents purpose of “harassing
and disparaging”, “defam[ing] Complainant’s business” and “interfering with Complainants business”; (v)
Respondent’s pattern of abusive domain name registrations targeting Complainant; and (vi) Respondent’s
conscious decision not to host her criticism about Complainant on any of her other domain names, like
, which do not include Complainant’s identical trademark.
...Panels find that even a general right to legitimate criticism does not necessarily extend to registering or
using a domain name identical to a trademark (i.e., (including typos)); even where such
a domain name is used in relation to genuine noncommercial free speech, panels tend to find that this
creates an impermissible risk of user confusion through impersonation. In certain cases, involving
parties exclusively from the United States, some panels applying US First Amendment principles have
found that even a domain name identical to a trademark used for a bona fide noncommercial criticism
site may support a legitimate interest.
...
2023-11-03 - Case Details
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.
The spectrum of possible modifiers and consequent degree of initial confusion
will vary from examples which a Panel may consider to be borderline “confusingly
similar” such as certain examples in the “sucks” type cases
and with a negative implication such that the likely degree of initial confusion
is extremely low, through to neutral modifiers such as the word “about”
in the domain name [Chinmoy Kumar Ghose v. ...
2004-05-13 - Case Details
Preparations for developing a business that could logically be marketed under a certain domain name can constitute legitimate preparations for use, even if the proposed business has no need to use the exact name at issue. See, e.g., PRIMEDIA Special Interest Publications Inc. v. Treadway, Case No. D2000-0752 (WIPO August 21, 2000) (preparations to develop photography-oriented website created legitimate interest in particular domain name "shutterbug.com"). ...In such cases, it would be unlikely that Respondent could develop a legitimate interest in using a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
As for the requirement of showing bad faith, Complainant does not even come close. ...
2001-01-08 - Case Details
• The Complainant relies on the concept of initial interest confusion, citing decisions of the US Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit in Brookfield Communications Inc .v. ...It is not, in the Panel's opinion, necessary in the circumstances of this case to explore the co-called concept of initial interest confusion [see, paragraph 5.1.3 above] , as to which the Panel expresses no view. The Complaint meets the twin requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
7. ...
2002-12-16 - Case Details
The deliberate diversion of Internet users who intend to access PFIZER’s
website constitutes bad faith, by creating initial interest confusion that takes
advantage of PFIZER’s goodwill. It is well-established in UDRP decisions
that “initial interest confusion” and the resultant misdirection
of Internet traffic to respondent is independently sufficient to establish bad
faith. ...Party Night Inc., WIPO
Case No. D2002-1128 (finding deliberate initial interest confusion is “sufficient
to establish bad faith”).
d. Respondent is using the domain names as a forwarding address to a for-profit on-line pharmacy.
...
2005-01-06 - Case Details
Moreover, as has been held in a number of Court decisions, confusion once created is not resolved after the initially confused consumer or customer has approached the Respondent and had that initial confusion cleared away. The danger of initial confusion lies in its ability to capture the attention of the viewer of or visitor to the website, at which point any damage is largely done.
...
2013-02-22 - Case Details
Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for a website in which are sold purported Complainant's original products, without doing anything to identify itself as being independent from the Complainant and therefore attempting to attract consumers for commercial gain by creating “initial interest confusion”.
On November 30, 2011 the Complainant sent a “cease and desist” letter to the Respondent that remained unanswered.
...Should the products sold on the website at the disputed domain name be genuine products, legitimately acquired by the Respondent, the question that would arise is whether the Respondent would therefore have a legitimate interest in using a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark in circumstances that are likely to give rise to initial interest confusion.
...
2013-06-14 - Case Details
D2007-0645, “The question that therefore arises is whether Respondent has a legitimate interest in using a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s trade marks in circumstances that are very likely to give rise to initial interest confusion, even though it may be selling Complainant’s legitimately trade marked goods at the site and any such confusion is likely to be dispelled once internet users arrive at the site because of its disclaimers? ...The Panel finds that the disclaimer at the web sites is not sufficient to remove the initial confusion of Internet users. The disclaimer at the web site does not in the Panel’s view dispel initial confusion. ...
2011-06-06 - Case Details
Indeed the initial interest confusion, rather than being dispelled by visiting the sites linked to the domain name, would likely have been enhanced on occasions.
In any event the Panel acknowledges the Ticketmaster Cases as establishing
that initial interest confusion is sufficient for the purposes of a Complainant
under this limb of the UDRP ( see eg: Ticketmaster Corp. v. ...
2003-05-23 - Case Details
The Domain Name "kreskin.com" suggests an association or relationship to Complainant, which does not exist and, if used by parties other than Complainant, will cause confusion in the marketplace. See Nike, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0167. Respondent's use of the Domain Name and the "www.kreskin.com" website creates a likelihood of initial interest confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Complainant.
The use of a disclaimer by Respondent is not sufficient to remedy initial interest confusion, especially when it appears on another website to which the Internet user has been directed. ...
2001-02-20 - Case Details
Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith due to alleged “typosquatting”, unauthorized use for commercial purposes, initial interest confusion, pay-per-click use of the disputed domain names, and Respondent’s other domain name registrations.
...This is true whether these efforts consist of an attempt to capitalize on initial interest confusion, Cantor Fitzgerald Securities v. DNS Admin,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0808, or are accomplished through pay-per-click landing pages. ...
2010-10-04 - Case Details
Complainant also asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith due to alleged “typosquatting”, unauthorized use for commercial purposes, initial interest confusion, “cash parking”, and Respondent’s alleged numerous other domain name registrations.
...This is true whether these efforts consist of an attempt to capitalize on initial interest confusion, Cantor Fitzgerald Securities v. DNS Admin,
WIPO Case No. D2010-0808, or are accomplished through “cash parking”. ...
2010-09-02 - Case Details
NASCAR adds that Respondent’s disclaimer to the effect that it was not affiliated with NASCAR did not cure the initial interest confusion that IS generated nor the bad-faith nature of its conduct.
(d) Response
As noted above, Respondent has provided no Response, although the deadline for so doing expired on July 9, 2001. ...No. D2000-1072 (December 5, 2000). It was the initial interest of
consumers that Respondent sought to exploit. That effect has already occurred
by the time any disclaimer may be seen. ...
2001-08-29 - Case Details
The WIPO
Overview, ¶2.4, identifies two opposing views, neither of which is accorded
majority status. View 1 follows the “initial interest confusion”
doctrine first articulated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit in Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. ...The Panel remains persuaded that View 1, the initial interest confusion approach, is appropriate under the Policy. The Panel adheres to View 1. Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
...
2007-01-03 - Case Details
Complainant notes that Respondent received the Domain Name from the initial registrant after the initial registrant received notice that the Domain Name infringed Complainant’s trademarks. The initial registrant also has a history of registering domain names with slight misspellings of trademarks.
...
2006-03-30 - Case Details
Colan, FA 0161469. Complainant argues that the “initial interest confusion” doctrine constitutes bad faith registration and use in and of itself, citing a number of UDRP decisions.
...American Distribution Systems, Inc., D/B/A Default Data.Com And Brian Wick,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0581, the Panel found both “initial interest confusion” and that Respondent had used such confusion to intentionally attract Internet users to the web site for commercial gain. ...
2012-12-04 - Case Details
The question
under Policy paragraph 4(a) is whether the Domain Name itself, without regard
to the content of an associated website, creates confusion as to the sponsorship
of the domain. This approach is necessary because cybersquatters – those
who register and use domain names in bad faith – frequently achieve their
purposes simply by creating “initial interest confusion” at the
point where an Internet user types an address or selects one of the results
of a search engine query in an effort to find a website related to the trademark
owner. ...The fact
that such confusion may be dispelled, and replaced by annoyance or disgust once
the nature of the site is revealed, does not negate the fact of initial confusion.
...
2005-07-01 - Case Details
Furthermore, Complainant claims that Respondent has no right or legitimate
interest in the domain name, because Complainant’s mark has been famous for
casino services for half a century. ...Rights or Legitimate Interests
In this case, Respondent is hoist on its own petard: although a United States
trademark registration for SANDS OF THE CARIBBEAN could be evidence of a legitimate
interest sufficient to prevent a finding for Complainant given the summary nature
of proceedings under the Policy, Respondent vehemently insisted in its opposition
to the petition to consolidate that it is merely an "affiliate" of
World Wide Tele Sports, the actual owner of the trademark registration (contrary
to Respondent’s initial representation to the Panel, Response Paragraph 35,
that Respondent owned the registration, before the Petition for Consolidation
was filed). ...
2001-12-14 - Case Details
The Respondent submits that it/the Company has the necessary right to and legitimate interest in the domain name at issue as the Company has paid all fees, including the yearly Internic renewal fee, from 2003.
...This follows from the fact that the listed price, USD 2,500.00, merely recovers the cost of the initial acquisition and yearly maintenance of the disputed domain name.
The Respondent is willing to transfer the disputed
domain name if the Complainant reimburses the Company the initial acquisition
cost, USD 2,500.00.
6. ...
2006-04-05 - Case Details
The concept of initial interest confusion was adopted by the Sea & Commercial Court of Copenhagen in Denmark when it gave its decision on 8 August 2000 in relation to the domain name which had been registered by a party not owning the trade mark rights in ROLEX (Montres Rolex).
...However, in offering similar services located at a site linked to a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, the Respondent stands to keep some proportion of the trade that, absent "initial interest confusion" (Footnote 1), would otherwise go to the Complainant.
See Estee Lauder Inc. v. estelauder.com, estelauder.net and Jeff Hanna,(WIPO case D2000-0869, September 25, 2000):
"The fact that the users, once so diverted or attracted, are confronted with numerous disclaimers does not cure the initial and illegitimate diversion".
...
2001-01-24 - Case Details