Interstellar Starship Services Ltd v. Epix Inc (epix.com) — 184 F.3d 1107

Core point: Using a trademark as a domain name is not automatically illegal. The real question is likelihood of confusion. Here, a theater group used epix.com while Epix, Inc. sold imaging products. Different markets meant confusion was unlikely; no infringement.

• Does epix.com for a theater site infringe the Epix mark used for imaging products?
• Is there a likelihood of confusion about source, sponsorship, or affiliation?

• No rights in gross: A trademark does not give control over all uses everywhere.
• Domains not per se banned: Trademark law does not automatically forbid using a mark as a domain name.
• Likelihood of confusion: Infringement exists only if ordinary consumers are likely to be confused.
• Market context matters: Different goods/services reduce confusion risk.

Held: No infringement. The businesses are distinct, so consumers are unlikely to think the theater site is tied to Epix, Inc.’s imaging goods. Even if there is brief initial confusion, it quickly disappears because the goods/services differ. Using a mark as a domain is not illegal by itself.

Ratio: Trademark rights are limited to preventing confusing uses, not all uses. A domain that points to unrelated services with clear context will usually not confuse the public.

• Clarifies that domain names are judged by the same confusion test as other uses.
• Shows how market separation reduces confusion risk.
• Guides brands and website owners on fair, non-confusing naming.

Mnemonic: D-O-M-A-I-N — Different markets, Online context, Meaning of name, Absence of overlap, Initial confusion short, No infringement.

1. Spot the markets and users.
2. Check for real overlap in goods/services.
3. Decide confusion realistically, not theoretically.

Issue: Does epix.com for theater activities infringe the EPIX trademark for imaging products?

Rule: Infringement needs a likelihood of confusion; trademarks do not grant rights in gross; domains are not per se infringement.

Application: Different markets and clear site content mean buyers would not think the theater site is tied to Epix, Inc.

Conclusion: No infringement; the use is non-confusing in context.

Likelihood of Confusion

Probability that consumers will be misled about source or affiliation.

Initial Interest Confusion

Brief early confusion online; often not enough if it vanishes once the page loads.

Rights in Gross

A misconception that a mark owner controls all uses of the word everywhere.