Other courts appear to have adopted a facts and circumstances approach to evaluating initial interest confusion. Big Star Entm't, Inc. v. Next Big Star, Inc., 105 F. Supp. 2d 185, 211 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (declining to apply initial interest confusion in the context of an internet case involving non-competitors whose web addresses were not identical); Northland Ins. ...Blaylock, 115 F. Supp. 2d 1108, 1120 (D.Minn. 2000) ("Initial interest confusion" exists when the defendant stood to materially or financially gain from said initial confusion by trading in on the value of plaintiff 's mark to initially attract customers.").
...
2003-08-11 - Case Details
Hanna Law Office,
WIPO Case No. D2000-0669, the Complainant
submits that “initial interest confusion” is a well-recognised phenomenon,
the occurance of which will ordinarily deprive a respondent from any right or
legitimate interest in a domain name.
...Such use of the Complainant’s device mark is likely to add to such initial interest confusion and confirm Internet visitors in their impression that the site is at the very least authorised by the Complainant.
...
2005-06-01 - Case Details
Complainant has asserted that this is a case of initial interest confusion. Complainant’s citation of Institut Straumann AG v. Core-Vent Corporation, supra, and United States Olympic Committee (USOC) v. ...According to the first case, Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in conjunction with a Web site selling a product similar to Complainant’s product showed an intention to create initial interest confusion among prospective consumers, therefore constituting bad faith. In the second case, the panel found that selling Olympic memorabilia and related products on a Web site to which domain names confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark resolved posed a risk of creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source and endorsement of the products. ...
2005-06-01 - Case Details
However, it is use in bad faith within the scope of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy where the registrant is using the domain name in this manner because of its similarity to a mark or name of another person in the hope and expectation that that similarity would lead to confusion on the part of Internet users and result in an increased number of Internet users being drawn to that domain name parking page (see, for example, Express Scripts, Inc., supra).
6.20 The confusion that is usually relevant here is the confusion that draws the Internet user to the respondent's website in the first place (for example, confusion that leads an Internet user to type the domain name into his Internet browser). It does not matter that when the Internet user arrives at the pay-per-click site that it then becomes clear that the website is unconnected with the trade mark holder.
6.21 Here, given that the Domain Name has no generic meaning, the only sensible interpretation of the material before the Panel is that the Domain Name is being used in order to take advantage of that “initial confusion”. That current use is also evidence of the Respondent’s intentions at the time of registration (even though the Panel recognises that this registration may have taken place approximately 7 years previously).
6.22 The Complainant has easily made out the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
7. ...
2011-09-01 - Case Details
However, any order directed to the Registrar will, in the interest of avoiding confusion, refer only to the Complainant Costco Wholesale Membership, Inc., the current owner of record of United States trademark registrations on which the Complaint is grounded.
...This by no means suggests that the author or the Respondent cannot legitimately use the company name “Costco” in a book title, merely that some care must be taken in selecting a Domain Name that does not create initial interest confusion and attempt to trade on the reputation of the Complainants by falsely suggesting an association with them. ...
2007-07-05 - Case Details
Factual Background
Complainant Photodex Corporation and its predecessors in interest and title
have, since February 1994, used the mark CLICKSEARCH for computer software used
for searching data. ...According to Complainant, the requisite bad faith exists
in this case because the evidence establishes that: (1) Respondent had constructive
notice of the existence of the CLICKSEARCH registration; (2) Respondent is intentionally
attempting to disrupt Complainant's business and to attract for financial gain
Internet users to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion
with Complainant's mark; (3) Respondent has advertised and sold software products
identical to those offered for sale by Complainant in an effort to disrupt Complainant's
business and to create a likelihood of confusion as to the source of Respondent's
products; (4) Respondent's use of the domain name creates initial interest
confusion; (5) Respondent failed to transfer or to cancel the domain name
despite Photodex's clear objection; (6) Respondent does not have a license to
use the CLICKSEARCH mark; (7) Respondent has refused to cooperate with
Photodex to resolve the dispute and continues to use the name; and (8) Respondent
failed to respond to any of Complainant's communications.
...
2001-10-25 - Case Details
According to the Complainant, the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because the Respondent, without the Complainant’s authorization, appropriated the dominant feature of the Complainant’s mark in order to capitalize on the initial interest confusion thereby created to attract Internet visitors to the Respondent’s website, where the Respondent offers virtually identical services to those of the Complainant, and attempts to pass its services off as those of the Complainant. ...In light of the foregoing, the Panel considers that the Respondent more likely than not acquired the disputed domain name in order to trade on the initial interest confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s mark, so as to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website, on which the Respondent offers auto transport services that essentially are the same as those offered by the Complainant. ...
2011-04-21 - Case Details
It states that consumers expect to find a trademark owner on the Internet at a domain name comprising the company’s name or trademark. There is”initial interest confusion” or diversion of traffic, which is illegal because it wrongfully capitalises on the Complainant’s goodwill in the SWAROVSKI trademarks. It states that the doctrine of”initial interest confusion” has been applied in numerous UDRP cases.
The Complainant states that the suffixes “crystal” and “sales” do not lessen the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s SWAROVSKI trademark. ...
2012-04-05 - Case Details
Consumers expect to find a trademark owner on the Internet at a domain name composed of the trademark owner's name or mark, and the addition of the said term does not dispel the confusing similarity.
The domain name creates initial interest confusion, causing the diversion of Internet traffic looking for Complainant's website to Respondent's website. ...v) Respondent's registration and use of the domain name creates initial interest confusion, which occurs when Internet users are attracted to the Respondent's website because of Respondent's use of Complainant's mark in the domain name.
...
2010-02-05 - Case Details
The Complainant further submits that the use of the disputed Domain Name by the Respondent further constitutes initial interest confusion and refers to the case of Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. v. Polanski,
WIPO Case No. ...Health Care Marketing Company, supra, where the use of a complainant’s trademark in a disputed domain name to promote the sale of pharmaceuticals was held to be per se bad faith use.
6.9 Thirdly, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s use of the disputed Domain Name constitutes initial–interest confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location. ...
2012-03-26 - Case Details
The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith
Numerous panels have found bad faith registration and use under the theory of “initial interest confusion”,
finding that such initial confusion is enough to demonstrate bad faith. Here, there can be no question that
the Domain Name creates initial interest confusion.
Given that the PEXCO Mark is readily identifiable within the confusingly similar Domain Name and is
followed by the word “brand”, a term synonymous with “trademark”, and that the Respondent’s actual use of
the Domain Name is to redirect visitors to a website soliciting offers to purchase the Domain Name, it is more
likely than not that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s PEXCO Mark and specifically and
intentionally targeted the Complainant in bad faith.
...
2022-05-03 - Case Details
This, according to Complainant, leads to initial interest confusion,
which is a violation of the Lanham Act. Finally, Complainant alleges that
Respondent acted in bad faith because its registration has prevented and
disrupted Complainant’s business by making it more difficult for fans of
LFO to find information about them and products bearing their name.
...An automatic
presumption of bad faith intent to cause confusion, or initial interest
confusion, stemming from a registrant’s taking over a lapsed registration
would essentially give registrants a right of recapture beyond that set
forth in their contracts with domain name registrars. ...
2002-05-16 - Case Details
Panels that have ordered transfers in criticism cases have done so under the “initial interest confusion” doctrine,9 see, e.g., Aspis Liv Försäkrings AB v. Neon Network, LLC,
WIPO Case No. ...One of the reasons given by panels that deem criticism sites legitimate10 is the unlikelihood of confusion or the correction of any initial interest confusion immediately after reaching the criticism site, see, e.g. ...
2008-11-12 - Case Details
On January 14, 2020, the website associated with the disputed domain name displayed nearly identical copies of Complainant’s AIRBNB mark and Bélo Logo, and announced Airbnb’s impending initial public offering (which never occurred), soliciting investors to “don’t miss out on the NYSE: AIRBNB Inc. 2020 IPO” (in all capital letters) by completing a form requesting their personal information saying that “Stockmarket Insider would like to contact you about the services we offer which may be of interest to you”.
...Complainant contends that AIRBNB is a well-known, distinctive, and strong mark and that this fame, distinctiveness, and strength only serves to increase the likelihood of confusion between the AIRBNB Mark and the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant alleges that Respondent used the Disputed Domain Name to host a website purporting to market Complainant’s (non-existent) initial public offering of stock in AIRBNB, which was nothing but a ruse Respondent used to phish for investors’ personal information and to promote its own online trading services and calculated to deceive Complainant’s users into thinking, falsely, that Respondent either is Complainant or is affiliated or connected with, or endorsed or approved by, Complainant. ...
2020-03-23 - Case Details
That is the case here. As in Covance, even if there is some initial interest confusion when a consumer first sees the Domain Name (which, unlike an alternative formulation like , does not immediately indicate whether it is a campaign for or against Ryanair), that confusion is immediately dispelled as soon as the consumer reaches the Website. ...In the present case, though, given the nature of this noncommercial criticism site (which, as noted above, gave rise to a legitimate interest), Respondent’s decision to ignore Complainant’s letters is not itself proof of bad faith.
Third, Complainant alleges that Respondent’s Website is causing confusion, or at least initial interest confusion, among Internet users searching for Complainant’s site. ...
2006-12-27 - Case Details
The Complainant points out that the mark was well known by the time the Respondent registered the Domain Name, and the Complainant infers that the resulting “initial interest” confusion was deliberate. The Complainant argues that using the Domain Name to attract customers to websites selling other products, some of them competing with those of the Complainant, is not a fair use of the mark but rather evidence of bad faith.
...It is a fair and unrefuted inference here that the Respondent intended to attract
Internet users by employing the Complainant’s mark in the Domain Name
and creating initial interest confusion as to the sponsorship of the website
to which the Domain Name resolved. This supports a finding of bad faith under
paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. ...
2005-11-01 - Case Details
Complainant claims Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because (1) was registered with the knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SWAROVSKI marks; (2) Respondent must have been aware of Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of because Complainant’s marks are well-known in the UK, China, and worldwide; (3) the selection of cannot be a coincidence because it wholly incorporates Complainant’s well-known mark which is not a generic or descriptive term; (4) Respondent has done nothing to identify itself as being independent from the Complainant and on the contrary, has incorporated Complainant’s marks throughout ; (5) Respondent is using to sell products that are confusingly similar or identical to Complainant’s products; and (6) creates initial interest confusion.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. ...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 Respondent has no legitimate interest in this case.” ...
2013-11-20 - Case Details
The inevitable consequence is that there will be initial interest confusion. A substantial proportion of Internet users visiting the site will be doing so in the hope and expectation of reaching a site of (or authorized by) the trade mark owner. ...Where, as here, the intentions of the Respondent are evidently to cause initial interest confusion and to exploit that confusion to express the Respondent’s views of the trade mark owner (whether negative or positive), the Panel is clear that such a use of a domain name cannot be anything other than abusive. ...
2008-06-05 - Case Details
Respondent derives its legitimate interest in the disputed domain name from its prior financial interest in the initial registrant and service mark owner. ...Ordinarily, use of a disputed domain name to create confusion is evidence of bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. However, the Panel has previously determined that Respondent acquired a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name at the time it was received. ...
2006-01-26 - Case Details
This "initial interest confusion" has been recognized by U.S. courts as sufficient to establish a likelihood of confusion under U.S. trademark law, even where the offending website contains a disclaimer which states that the site is not affiliated with the trademark holder. ...West Coast Entertainment Corp., 174 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 1999), however, discusses original interest confusion as being actionable when one competitor is creating initial confusion in order to attract consumers to its competing products (Id. at 1062-1063). ...
2000-10-09 - Case Details