Arguing that names of parties in different businesses not in competition with each other ought not be considered confusingly similar is not a consideration under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. “While this analysis may be relevant to traditional arguments for trademark infringement, the analysis is not relevant to the concept of confusing similarity,” Vicini S.P.A. v. You Know, No One, D2009-0285 (WIPO May 13, 2009) (<vicini.com>). It becomes an issue under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.

However, where there are competing rights the first to register is entitled to the domain name regardless whether it is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. The competing right in Vicini is a patronymic used in connection with a family business in the Dominican Republic. Traditionally, there have been three types of competing rights. Businesses each entitled to the domain name and commonly known by it. In these cases, it makes no difference that the respondent’s right accrues from an unregistered trademark. The second type, respondents with trademarks (not necessarily used in the name of their business) registered in a different country. The third type is registration of a personal name (sometimes a nickname) for a website personal in content. Vicini combines business and personal name. In either case, Panels insist that the registration be in good faith under the subparagraphs of 4(c) of the Policy. Rejected, for example, is the Respondent’s explanation in Tower Laboratories Ltd. v. Eric Seltzer, FA0609000791325 (Nat. Arb. Forum October 16, 2007). He registered <bromoseltzer.com> allegedly in memory of his father’s deceased dog, Bromo. The Panel in held that:

[It] does not follow that registration of a nickname that is based squarely on a widely known and perhaps famous trademark vitiates against infringement when the mark is reused in another context by the Respondent. Notably the ultimate reason that Respondent registered the domain name was because of its commercial notoriety and that it contained Respondent’s surname.

Respondents who successfully rebut the complainant's prima facie case have a legal right to the domain name, not simply a legitimate interest. The distinction is an important marker of value. A respondent who is found to have a legitimate interest has an asset of lesser value.