## Facts

- Hasbro, Inc. owned the registered CLUE® trademark for its well-known detective board game and had long used and advertised the mark.
- Clue Computing, Inc., a small Colorado computer-consulting and Internet-access business, adopted the name “Clue Computing” in 1994 and registered the domain name **clue.com** to market its services.
- Hasbro challenged Clue Computing’s domain registration through the then-domain registrar, which threatened termination of the registration after Hasbro asserted trademark rights.
- Clue Computing obtained a state-court preliminary injunction preventing the registrar from terminating the domain registration.
- Hasbro brought suit in federal court alleging Lanham Act infringement and federal and Massachusetts dilution based on Clue Computing’s continued use of **clue.com**.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Clue Computing on infringement and, acting as factfinder by consent, entered judgment for Clue Computing on both dilution claims.
- Hasbro appealed; the First Circuit affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether Clue Computing’s use of **clue.com** for computer-related services created a likelihood of confusion with Hasbro’s CLUE® mark under the Lanham Act.
2. Whether use of **clue.com** diluted the distinctiveness of Hasbro’s allegedly famous CLUE® mark under federal dilution law or Massachusetts anti-dilution law (by blurring or tarnishment).
3. Whether “initial interest confusion” from Internet users who might first reach **clue.com** while seeking Hasbro’s CLUE® game established actionable confusion or supported liability.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed judgment for Clue Computing on all claims.
- The courts held Hasbro failed to show a likelihood of confusion, given the dissimilarity between board games and computer consulting, differing consumer groups, minimal evidence of actual confusion, and lack of bad faith.
- The courts held Hasbro failed to prove dilution by blurring or tarnishment; defendant’s use did not lessen the mark’s capacity to identify Hasbro’s goods and did not harm the mark’s reputation.
- The district court declined to impose liability on these facts based on an “initial interest confusion” theory where any mistaken visit would be quickly dispelled and not shown to exploit Hasbro’s goodwill.

## Legal Principles

- Likelihood of confusion in trademark infringement is assessed using traditional multi-factor analysis, with attention to product relatedness, consumer base, channels of trade, actual confusion evidence, and the defendant’s intent.
- Mere shared presence on the Internet does not establish overlapping channels of trade sufficient to create confusion when the parties’ goods and customers materially differ.
- A domain name incorporating a word identical to a trademark does not, by itself, establish infringement where the domain is used in good faith for an unrelated business and confusion evidence is slight.
- Dilution requires proof that the challenged use lessens the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish the owner’s goods (blurring) or harms the mark’s reputation (tarnishment); fame alone is insufficient.
- “Initial interest confusion” is not automatically actionable; where any initial mistake is promptly corrected and there is no meaningful diversion or appropriation of goodwill, liability may be rejected.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit upheld findings that a small consulting firm’s good-faith use of **clue.com** for unrelated computer services neither confused consumers nor diluted Hasbro’s famous CLUE® mark, leaving the defendant entitled to continue using the domain name.


Hasbro, Inc. v. Clue Computing, Inc., 232 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2000)