Combined with Respondent s own admission, this is ample evidence of bad faith use. Again, Respondent s newly developed critical use of the site during the pendency of this proceeding is insufficient to erase the prior bad faith use. See, e.g., EAuto, L.L.C. v. This Panel has also held that incorporating a distinctive mark in its entirety creates sufficient similarity between the mark and the domain name to render it confusingly similar. But the fame of a mark does not always mean that consumers will associate all use of the mark with the mark s owner.
Complainant has no evidence of any potential confusion.
The Panel specifically rejects Complainant s argument that consumers are likely to be confused as to the sponsorship or association of a domain name that combines a famous mark with a term casting opprobrium on the mark. This describes Respondent s behavior. The Panel is cognizant of the importance of protecting protest sites that use a trademark to identify the object of their criticism.