Observations and rhetorical or questions that are hypothetical. The Panel has endeavored to conclude all this material to the contentions noted below. Although this is of requisite a synopsis, the Panel notes that most associated with the Respondent’s submissions had been considered within their entirety relating to the current choice.
The Respondent requests that the Complaint be rejected. The Respondent asserts that it’s maybe not engaged in typo-squatting and contrasts the career of this disputed domain title, which it notes is a legitimate and typical word in English that relates and it is necessary to dating, with that of the hypothetical domain name which removes one page from the well-known brand name hence making a meaningless typographical variant. The Respondent submits that the previous is a faith that is good whilst the latter may very well be in bad faith.
The Respondent notes that the disputed website name really should not be viewed as a typographical variant of this Complainant’s mark as the replaced letters
“e” and “i” are on opposing sides associated with the keyboard so that the tips are pushed with various fingers. The Respondent adds that typo-squatting just is practical when utilizing a domain that is“.com because browsers will add this domain immediately if an individual term is entered or because internet surfers typically add “.com” to virtually any name by muscle tissue memory.
The Respondent states that it registered multiple “. Singles”, “. Dating”, “. Date”, and similar domain names within the format “dating related term” dot “dating related gTLD”, noting that all its commercial sites are about dating and therefore in this context “singles” is a favorite search keyword. The Respondent notes that the gTLD “. Singles” has a target audience of online dating which will be its section of company. The Respondent states that the disputed domain title is comparable to the remainder of the dating domains not towards the Complainant’s TINDER mark, incorporating there is a naming pattern and therefore a number of these had been registered from the day that is same. The Respondent claims so it utilized the thesaurus generate record but that this isn’t connected as it does not trust the Complainant. The Respondent provides to make such list available if it’s only accessed because of the Center.
The Respondent claims so 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 it hasn’t utilized 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 web site linked to the disputed domain title shown any try to be linked to the Complainant or its TINDER mark. The Respondent notes that the people to its web web site see no adverts and produce no income 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 will have utilized a “tinder” keyword. The Respondent states that unlike the https://besthookupwebsites.net/elitesingles-review/ Complainant it does not develop mobile applications, nor does the Respondent have confidence in the Complainant’s dating concept, noting that its very own concept differs from the others whereby any individual may contact any kind of without matching. The Respondent claims the Complainant’s concept is really a “lookup app” while “tender” is really an expressed term employed by individuals looking longterm relationships.
The Respondent submits that “tender” is a vital term that will be popularly utilized in the dating company because it is very suitable words both for indigenous and non-native English speakers to explain by themselves or their perfect partner on online dating sites beneath the concept of soft, delicate or mild. The Respondent supports this assertion with regards to screenshots from alternative party online dating sites which it states feature extensive utilization of this word in thousands or an incredible number of pages, the goal of which can be for users to spell it out their individual characteristics. The Respondent adds that many people on online dating sites are seeking a tender single partner and this is the reason certainly one of the Respondent’s sites is termed “Tender Singles” whereby it’s wise to see the 2nd and top-level associated with the disputed website name together.
The Respondent adds that “tender” is really a trait that is positive feature of men and women and therefore its potential audience may have a good a reaction to this plus asserts that only a few 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 phrase “tinder” just isn’t commonly applied to alternative party sites that are dating, where it was used, this is certainly as being a misspelling for the term “tender”.
The Respondent claims so it only uses the term “Tender” in its logo as this really is old-fashioned for the majority of websites instead of to create out the complete domain name and that this additionally looks better on mobile phones because otherwise the logo design would use up the landing page that is whole.
The Respondent asserts that it’s maybe maybe not lawfully permissible or reasonable for the Complainant to seek to avoid other people from utilizing terms such as “tender”, “dating”, “singles”, “gentle”, “kind”, “cupid”, “love”, “heart”, etc. In dating sites’ names since these terms are associated with dating. The Respondent especially submits that “tender” cannot be protected for dating services as “apple” can not be protected for offering fresh fruit.
The Respondent executes hypothetical searches in the “Google” search motor and creates the outcome which it states can be done when users enter terms such as for instance “tender” within their web browser.
The Respondent claims that users will never look for “tender” on its own if in search of the Respondent’s web web site but for “tender singles” and similarly would look perhaps perhaps not for “tinder” by itself but also for “tinder app” or “tinder mobile” when searching for the Complainant’s solutions.
The Respondent asserts that the grievance happens to be earned bad faith since the Complainant have not formerly contacted the Respondent to talk about its issues. Had it done this, the Respondent notes that it may have considered “a feasible modification”, for instance an “even more various font when you look at the logo design” but says so it will not achieve this, incorporating that this will be an instance of an industry frontrunner trying to intimidate a startup.
C. Respondent’s submission that is additional reaction
The Respondent provides four screenshots from the Bing AdWords account having redacted certain information which it states is unrelated for this matter. The Respondent notes that Google will not let the usage of more than one AdWords account fully for a certain web site and that it isn’t possible to improve the annals regarding the account. The Respondent claims that the screenshots reveal all data for the account along with a filter when it comes to term “tinder” which it claims indicates that such term never been utilized in key words or advertisers content that is. The Respondent claims that the screenshot that is final two ads in “removed” status which it argues demonstrate that this has constantly used each associated with the terms “tender” and “singles” within the adverts.
The Respondent adds that the screenshot implies 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 each of its web sites. The Respondent says that the majority of its traffic originates from taken care of ads. The Respondent shows so it has invested around 30% regarding the normal Swiss IT employee’s wage and asks why it’s considered because of the Complainant so it would achieve this for typo-squatting in bad faith if it didn’t trigger adverts when it comes to term “tinder”, specially as key words aren’t visually noticeable to the consumer and therefore it really is legal and permitted to use the name or model of a competitor in a keyword. The Respondent submits that this shows that the Complainant’s software had not been in its brain either whenever it named the web site or when it labored on its advertising.
D. Complainant’s filing that is supplemental
The Complainant records that the Respondent has tried showing so it have not benefitted through the Complainant’s trademark via ad acquisitions but records that the meta tags on the site from the disputed website name have its, or its affiliates’, trademarks MATCH, LOTS OF FISH and POF.
