It [disney.example.com] is trademark infringement.I don't think there's been any such definitive ruling...yet.
One would like to grab traffic by using "disney" as third level domain.
Same thing with meta tags.I don't know of any major search engine that parses or assigns any weight to 3LDs (unless it is, for example: disney.co.uk). And I very much doubt there'd be any type-in traffic, unless again it was at, for example disney.com.au, and even that would be miniscule and Disney would come after you. But if ICANNWatch.org set up disney.icannwatch.org to host the polls now found at the upper right of this page I doubt Disney would bother worrying about it.
Meta tags are a somewhat different issue. They're not really within the purview of ICANN (or its Watchers) but that doesn't stop UDRP panelists using them as evidence to make decisions. So I'll mention them. :)
First, misusing meta tags can (and usually does in short order) get you banned from search engines so it isn't really worth the risk. Second, Court rulings on meta tag misuse of TM's have been all over the map. Again I don't think one can point to any definitive ruling, even within a given nation. The interesting thing is that some who have clearly used famous mark meta tags to mislead and/or trade off have lost court cases in a bad way. A couple of individuals in Asia had million dollar+ rulings against them for using 'playboy' for example, so you won't see a lot of people trying that. When that ruling came down there were a heckuva lot of sites removing 'playboy' from their meta tags.
I've said all along that instead of the IP folks investing so much time and money in the UDRP they could have pooled their resources and gone after a few of the worst bad actors. A couple of million dollar rulings would have chilled out most of the cybersquatters. Instead the worst bad actors, and many other cybersquatters, have learned how to beat the UDRP at least often enough to make it profitable, and without much risk. I'm all for taking a few of those who really don't play nice and metaphorically hanging them from lamp posts alongside the infobahn. Better to use existing laws than have ICANN come up with kludges.
But one thing is clear: as long as you use the trademark "disney" to sell or promote Disneys products they won't sue you.I very much doubt this is the case. If you're not licensed to use the name Disney and you do, either to sell their product or a competing product, or an unrelated product, or even possibly no product, eg: if you registered disney.org, not only might they come after you, US trademark law more or less mandates that they have to come after you, as failure to aggressively protect your mark can lead to a weaker mark.
BTW, disney.org does point to the Mouse and friends as a redirect, and if that isn't dumb enough, it redirects not to disney.com, but to disney.go.com. Disney bought the Go search engine a few years ago and ran it into the ground. I guess if they still have the domain name they figure they should make use of it. -g