Findings and rhetorical or questions that are hypothetical. The Panel has endeavored in summary all this material to the contentions noted below. A summary, the Panel notes that all of the Respondent’s submissions were considered in their entirety in connection with the present Decision while this is of necessity.
The Respondent requests that the Complaint be rejected. The Respondent asserts it notes is a valid and common word in English that relates and is essential to dating, with that of a hypothetical domain name which removes one letter from a well-known brand thus leaving a meaningless typographical variant that it is not engaged in typo-squatting and contrasts the position of the disputed domain name, which. The Respondent submits that the previous is a good faith registration as the latter is going to be in bad faith.
“e” and “i” are on other sides regarding the keyboard so that the secrets are pushed with different arms. The Respondent adds that typo-squatting just is practical when working with a domain that is“.com because browsers will add this domain automatically if an individual term is entered or because internet surfers typically add “.com” to virtually any title by muscle tissue memory.
The Respondent states that it registered multiple “. Singles”, “. Dating”, “. Date”, and comparable domain names in the format “dating related term” dot “dating associated gTLD”, noting that most of its commercial sites are about dating and that in this context “singles” is a favorite search keyword. The Respondent notes that the gTLD “. Singles” has a target audience of internet dating which can be its part of company. The Respondent states that the disputed domain title is comparable to the remainder of the dating domain names although not towards the Complainant’s TINDER mark, adding that there’s a naming pattern and that a majority of these had been registered from the day that is same. The Respondent claims because it does not trust the Complainant that it used the thesaurus to create the list but that this is not attached. The Respondent offers in order to make list that is such when it is just accessed because of the Center.
The Respondent claims it has spent considerable amounts of money on each site over years, possibly prior to the Complainant having any website that it runs less than a dozen websites and submits that the traffic to such sites results from paid advertisements and returning users, adding. The Respondent adds so it hasn’t used the phrase “tinder” as a keyword or perhaps in any ad content, nor have actually its ads imitated the Complainant’s providing, nor achieved it ever have actually the Complainant’s mark at heart, nor has got the site from the disputed domain title shown any make an effort to be linked to the Complainant or its TINDER mark. The Respondent notes that the people to its web site see no ads and create no earnings in it driving traffic to its landing page where there are no advertisements unless they sign up, contending that there would be no point.
The Respondent submits that anybody whose intention was in fact typo-squatting could have utilized a “tinder” keyword. The Respondent states that unlike the Complainant it will not develop mobile applications, nor does the Respondent rely on the Complainant’s dating concept, noting that a unique concept differs from the others whereby any individual may contact virtually any without matching. The Respondent claims the Complainant’s concept is a “lookup app” while “tender” is really an expressed term employed by individuals shopping for long haul relationships.
The Respondent submits that “tender” is a vital term that is popularly utilized in the dating business since it is the https://besthookupwebsites.net/sugardaddyforme-review/ most suitable terms both for indigenous and non-native English speakers to spell it out themselves or their perfect partner on dating sites underneath the meaning of soft, delicate or mild. The Respondent supports this assertion with regards to screenshots from alternative party internet dating sites which it claims function substantial utilization of this word in thousands or scores of pages, the goal of which will be for users to explain their individual characteristics. The Respondent adds that many individuals on internet dating sites are looking for a tender single partner and this is why certainly one of the Respondent’s internet internet sites is termed “Tender Singles” whereby it’s a good idea to learn the next and top-level for the disputed domain title together.
The Respondent adds that “tender” is a good trait or attribute of men and women and that its customers could have an optimistic a reaction to this plus asserts that not absolutely all reports about the Complainant’s TINDER mark are universally good so that it will never have attempt to have its web web site confused with the Complainant’s solutions. The Respondent submits that the term “tinder” just isn’t commonly used on alternative party sites that are dating, where it is often used, this might be as being a misspelling associated with word “tender”.
The Respondent claims so it just makes use of the term “Tender” with its logo design as this is certainly traditional for some sites in place of to create out of the complete website name and that this additionally looks better on mobile phones because otherwise the logo design would use up the entire squeeze page.
The Respondent asserts that it’s maybe not lawfully permissible or reasonable when it comes to Complainant to get to stop other people from making use of terms such as “tender”, “dating”, “singles”, “gentle”, “kind”, “cupid”, “love”, “heart”, etc. In dating websites’ names since these words are pertaining to dating. The Respondent especially submits that “tender” can not be protected for online dating services as “apple” can not be protected for offering good fresh fruit.
The Respondent claims that users wouldn’t normally look for “tender” by itself if in search of the Respondent’s web site but also for “tender singles” and similarly would look perhaps maybe not for “tinder” by itself however for “tinder app” or “tinder mobile” when searching for the Complainant’s services.
The Respondent asserts that the problem is introduced bad faith as the Complainant have not previously contacted the Respondent to go over its concerns. Had it done this, the Respondent notes that it may have considered “a feasible modification”, for instance an “even more various font within the logo design” but says it will no longer do this, incorporating that this will be a case of an industry frontrunner wanting to intimidate a startup.
C. Respondent’s additional submission to reaction
The Respondent provides four screenshots from the Bing AdWords account having redacted particular information which it claims is unrelated for this matter. The Respondent notes that Bing doesn’t let the usage of significantly more than one AdWords account fully for a certain web site and that it’s not feasible to improve the annals regarding the account. The Respondent claims that the screenshots show all data because of its account along with a filter when it comes to term “tinder” which it states suggests that such word never been utilized in key words or advertisers content that is. The Respondent claims that the last screenshot shows two adverts in “removed” status which it argues demonstrate that it offers always utilized both of the terms “tender” and “singles” within the advertisements.
The Respondent adds that the screenshot suggests that is has invested CHF 34,382.49 on AdWords to promote the domain that is disputed and CHF 161,927.98 as a whole for every one of its internet sites. The Respondent claims that the majority of its traffic originates from taken care of ads. The Respondent suggests so it has invested around 30percent of this typical Swiss IT employee’s income and asks why it’s considered by the Complainant so it would achieve this for typo-squatting in bad faith if it didn’t trigger advertisements for the word “tinder”, specially as key words aren’t noticeable to an individual and therefore it really is legal and permitted to use the title or model of a competitor in a keyword. The Respondent submits that this shows that the Complainant’s application had not been in its brain either whenever it known as the web site or whenever it labored on its advertising.
D. Complainant’s supplemental filing
The Complainant records that the Respondent has tried to exhibit so it have not benefitted through the Complainant’s trademark via ad acquisitions but notes that the meta data on the internet site from the disputed domain title have its, or its affiliates’, trademarks MATCH, A GREAT AMOUNT OF FISH and POF.
Company Reviews