The use of a disclaimer by Respondents is not sufficient to dispel the likelihood of initial interest confusion by an internet user. The Respondents’ Domain Names use the Trademarks in the title of the Domain Names which resolve to Respondents’ website. ...Given the initial interest confusion created by Respondents’ use of Complainant’s Trademarks, I would find that Respondents’ use of the Domain Names does not constitute fair use and does not satisfy the criteria of paragraph 4(c)(iii). ...
2001-03-27 - Case Details
A domain name registration is not illegitimate where
a Respondent has no specified use at the time of registration, but has begun
preparations to use the website.
The Respondent’s legitimate interest is further established because Te Papa is a common descriptive term referring to the father and, therefore, the Respondent had a vested legitimate interest in the disputed domain name at the point of registration. ...If the Respondent wished to create a website extolling the beauties and advantages of the many places he had visited and of New Zealand in particular, then it is difficult to see why he should have devised a trademark, the initial letters of which correspond with the word “Te Papa” which just happened to coincide with the initial letters of the disputed domain name.
...
2004-06-22 - Case Details
Commercial intent was established (see under “Legitimate Interest”, above). This leaves the question whether the Respondent had the intention to attract Internet users to his website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s web site or location or of a product.
...An average Internet user is likely to assume that a web site identified by Complainant’s mark is operated by or on behalf of Complainant, and will visit that site. This establishes initial interest confusion with respect to the consumer. Respondent will have accomplished much of its purpose in using Complainant’s mark by initially drawing consumers to its web site.”
...
2005-09-20 - Case Details
The Complainant also relies on the principle of initial interest confusion as described by the US Courts of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit in Brookfield Communications In v West Coast Entertainment Corporation (Case number 98-56918). 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).
...
2001-01-24 - Case Details
Complainant’s registrations for its ENTERPRISE mark in the United States and the United Kingdom were made prior to the initial registration of the Domain Name.
(2) No rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name
Complainant claims that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and, instead, is using it to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the ENTERPRISE mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website and the products and services offered through it. ...Complainant has suggested that because the Domain Name was first registered in 1997, it is possible that the initial registration and use of the Domain Name at that time might have been in good faith. However, there is no evidence in the record that the Domain Name has ever been used in a bona fide manner that might give rise to any right or legitimate interest on the part of Respondent. ...
2014-07-01 - 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 ‘sale’ do not lessen the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s SWAROVSKI trademark. ...
2012-04-05 - Case Details
Therefore, the combination of “swarovski” with “new” and “sale” creates an immediate potential for false association with the SWAROVSKI trademark, and a high degree of initial confusion. See adidas-Salomon AG v. Digi Real Estate Foundation, Patrick Williamson,
WIPO Case No. ...The Panel agrees with Complainant’s contention that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name creates an “initial interest confusion” and that Respondent has done nothing to identify itself as being independent from Complainant.
...
2014-03-20 - Case Details
Conversely, Complainant’s evidence suggests that Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to create initial interest confusion in order to attract Internet users to its monetized landing page which displays links to Verizon’s products and services as well as those of its competitors. ...Given the well-known status of the mark, and Respondent’s use of the mark to create initial interest confusion in order to drive Internet traffic to its site for commercial benefit, this Panel finds it inconceivable that Respondent was not aware of Verizon and its international business. ...
2012-04-13 - Case Details
Even if the Respondent explains on its website that the tables offered are not made by the LEGO Group, this disclaimer does not exclude initial confusion of the visitor and cannot of itself and in the absence of other factors including for example an authorized distributorship or resale arrangement with the trademark owner make the Respondent’s use of the domain name legitimate.
...Even if visitors, having studied the contents of the website (including the disclaimer in small text), and realize that they are being offered products of the Respondent, their initial confusion has led them to visit the website of the Respondent and has diverted them from the Complainant. ...
2007-09-14 - Case Details
D2002-1128 found that the deliberate creation of initial internet
confusion and the consequent diversion of internet traffic is sufficient to
establish bad faith on the Respondent’s part notwithstanding that the
internet users who have visited the Respondent’s site would not be confused
into believing that it was the Complainant’s site. This Panel agrees with
the view that initial interest confusion, when coupled with sufficient evidence
of intention or deliberate creation, can give rise to bad faith.
...
2005-08-12 - Case Details
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The inference which the Panel can reasonably draw from the circumstances surrounding the registration and use of the disputed domain name is that the Respondent deliberately created the domain name with the intention of diverting Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of initial confusion with the Complainant’s mark. This practice is commonly referred to as creating initial Internet confusion.
...This Panel agrees with the view that initial interest confusion, when
coupled with sufficient evidence of intention or deliberate creation, can give
rise to bad faith.
...
2005-12-05 - Case Details
Respondent consciously chose the domain names at issue to lead Internet
users to its sites and is probably counting on initial confusion to direct Internet
users to these websites. Disclaimers and links directed to the authorized site
do not mitigate matters. ...As the Panel has noted above, disclaimers and links to the authorized site do not dispel the initial confusion.
The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent registered
and is using the domain names and
in bad faith and that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is
satisfied.
7. ...
2006-09-20 - Case Details
In line with a number of prior decision in cases of “typosquatting”, the Panel finds that the Respondent knew that a significant proportion of Internet users would be deceived on the basis of “initial interest confusion”. The fact that, upon arriving at the web site and/or after a certain amount of further investigation, some users might be disabused is to be considered irrelevant since, by that time, the Respondent would have obtained its commercial business opportunity, an opportunity that the Respondent might well not otherwise have obtained had he adopted a domain name not confusingly similar to registered trademark.
...The use of a registered trademark in a domain name allows the entity registering
the domain name to capture traffic and point or divert it to another website”.
Initial interest confusion is a well recognised phenomenon in prior UDRP decisions and the Panel finds that amongst all cases dealing with initial interest of Internet users, the addition of “www” as prefix of a well known registered trademark has deprived the Respondent of any right or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name in issue.
...
2005-11-22 - Case Details
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.1/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.1/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.1/
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.1/
page 5
Instead, the Respondent claims a legitimate interest in using the disputed domain name to publish satire and
information. This is already problematic for a disputed domain name that is identical to the Complainant’s
trademark, where there is a high risk of initial interest confusion and implied affiliation with the trademark
holder (see WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.6.2), despite the presence of disclaimers after an Internet user
opens the associated website. ...This is not non-commercial or fair use commentary
but rather trademark abuse, as the Respondent relies on initial interest confusion to suggest an association
with the Complainant and attract both consumers and dealers in the cannabis market to a site that is not
merely informational but involves the placement of relevant paid advertising on the Respondent’s site and
prominent promotion and links to one of the Complainant’s direct competitors. ...
2026-06-23 - Case Details
Even if they do not form this belief, the arousal of their initial interest in the competing site creates a likelihood of confusion and constitutes a use of the Mark to attract the user. ...In the view of the Panel, and in line with other decided ‘typosquatting’ cases under the Policy, these matters are of themselves sufficient to establish bad faith on the Respondent’s part. By way of comment, however, the confusion caused by the Respondent is ‘initial interest confusion’ and the Panel has difficulty in accepting the Complainant’s assertions that actual confusion would be caused to internet users who have visited the Respondent’s site. ...
2003-01-06 - Case Details
The Panel is aware of no general and widely accepted principle recognised in national legal systems that such confusion must be prevented, particularly where to do so would curtail freedom of speech or restrict competition.
6.28 To the contrary, for example, in Australian and UK law, initial interest confusion has been found not to be sufficient for a finding of unfair competition: see Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Pub-Squash Co Pty Ltd [1981] RPC 429 and BP Amoco plc v. ...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. ...
2008-03-13 - Case Details
D2008-0642 (The panel found that the respondent’s choice of the domain name has created a likelihood of confusion between the domain name and the complainant’s mark, of the kind commonly referred to as “initial interest confusion”. Confusion of this kind cannot be “cured” by posting a “fine print” disclaimer on the respondent’s website. ...
2019-01-18 - Case Details
Even if a visitor to the Respondent’s site were to realise that he or she had been re-directed to an online pharmacy unconnected with the Complainant, nonetheless the initial interest confusion that lured the visitor in would also support a finding of bad faith (F. Hoffman-La Roche AG v. ...As observed by another panel, “the deliberate creation of initial interest confusion and the consequent diversion of internet traffic is sufficient to establish bad faith on the Respondent’s part” (Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications International AB, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Sony Corporation v. ...
2007-09-20 - Case Details
Complainant – supplemental filing
The Complainant submitted to the Center on November 20, 2012, a supplemental filing containing statements refuting many of the Respondent’s contentions, including statements to the effect that: (i) the Respondent does not satisfy the four elements of the Oki Data case as it is not a genuine or licensed reseller of the Complainant’s goods and services, it does not sell ANDROID trademarked goods sourced from the Complainant, the disclaimer added to the Respondent’s website is inadequate and does not address the initial interest confusion arising from the disputed domain name and website title, and, having failed to meet the first three grounds, the fourth one is not relevant to the Complaint; (ii) the Complainant can claim priority of rights from an overseas trademark application filed within six months of the filing of the overseas application; (iii) the Respondent has not denied awareness of the Complainant’s ANDROID trademark and operating system at the time it registered the disputed domain name; (iv) the defence of laches does not apply as a bar to proceedings under the UDRP; (v) the Respondent’s website traffic data indicates the extent of initial interest confusion of consumers and, in any case, is inconsistent with the claimed website traffic data appearing on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves; (vi) the trademark ANDROID is not descriptive of applications that operate on the Android platform, and although the trademark ANDROID has a secondary meaning (the Android platform) that secondary meaning is derived from and inextricably linked to the Complainant’s use of the ANDROID trademark; and (vii) the other domain names identified by the Respondent that contain the word “android” have no bearing on this Complaint.
...Respondent – supplemental filing
On January 4, 2013, the Respondent filed a supplemental submission contending: (i) Android applications are their own distinct genus, or family of products, and that the phrase “android apps” is descriptive of all Android applications; (ii) the word “Android” does not have any secondary meaning derived from the Complainant’s use of the ANDROID trademark, because the word “Android” is not used exclusively by the Complainant, the Complainant’s consumer-facing use of the word is relatively limited, the word is used extensively by third parties descriptively to describe goods and services that are not associated with the Complainant, and even if the word has secondary meaning the Respondent’s descriptive use of it cannot be restrained; (iii) the Respondent’s use of the word “Android” is a legitimate descriptive use, because the Respondent is genuinely offering applications for mobile devices that run, operate and interact with the Android software stack; (iv) there is no initial interest confusion because a visitor to the website to which the disputed domain name resolves gets what they want – namely, legally downloadable Android apps; (v) by bringing this Complaint the Complainant is attempting to restrict or control the Respondent’s innovation, thereby creating a closed ecosystem and restricting freedom and choice.
...
2013-01-24 - Case Details
The dissent stated:
“The Internet user searching for information regarding Complainant’s events are drawn to Respondent’s website through initial interest confusion…and that even where people realize, immediately, upon accessing the complained of website, that they have reached a site operated by someone other than the trademark owner, the impinging website will have gained a customer by appropriating the goodwill of the trademark owner.”
6.9 Indeed, a contrary result, also over a dissent, was reached in The
Orange Bowl Committee, Inc. v. ...D2000-1409.
6.22 At the very least, Respondent’s website creates an initial interest confusion that smacks of opportunistic bad faith. At least among those fluent in Korean, they will have reached a site operated by someone other than the trademark owner, and Respondent’s website will have gained a customer by appropriating the goodwill of the trademark owner.
6.23 For these reasons, the evidence and arguments presented in these proceedings,
show that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad
faith.
7. ...
2006-05-04 - Case Details