B. Respondent The Panel notes that the reaction happens to be prepared in a mode which can be called conversational or discursive in general and possesses many responses,

B. Respondent The Panel notes that the reaction happens to be prepared in a mode which can be called conversational or discursive in general and possesses many responses,

Findings and rhetorical or questions that are hypothetical. The Panel has endeavored in summary all this product 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 denied. 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 just a faith that is good as the latter is going to be in bad faith.

The Respondent notes that the disputed domain title shouldn’t be regarded as a typographical variant associated with the Complainant’s mark since the replaced letters

“e” and “i” are on opposing edges associated with the keyboard in a way that the secrets are pushed with various arms. The Respondent adds that typo-squatting just is reasonable when making use of a domain that is“.com because browsers will include this domain immediately if an individual word is entered or because online users typically add “.com” to virtually any name by muscle memory.

The Respondent states that it registered multiple “. Singles”, “. Dating”, “. Date”, and comparable domains into the format “dating related term” dot “dating associated gTLD”, noting that most of its commercial internet sites are about dating and that in this context “singles” is a well known search keyword. The Respondent notes that the gTLD “. Singles” has a target audience of online dating sites which will be its section of company. The Respondent states that the disputed website name is comparable to the others of their dating domain names not to your Complainant’s TINDER mark, incorporating there is a naming pattern and that a majority of these had been registered from the exact same time. 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 proposes to produce list that is such in case it is just accessed by the guts.

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 so it has not used the term “tinder” as being a keyword or in any ad content, nor have actually its ads imitated the Complainant’s providing, nor did it ever have actually the Complainant’s mark at heart, nor gets the internet site linked to the disputed website name shown any try to be linked to the Complainant or its TINDER mark. The Respondent notes that the people to its web site see no adverts and produce 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 indeed typo-squatting could have utilized a “tinder” keyword. The Respondent states that unlike the Complainant it does not develop mobile applications, nor does the Respondent have confidence in the Complainant’s dating concept, noting that unique concept is significantly diffent whereby any individual may contact some other without matching. The Respondent claims the Complainant’s concept is really a “lookup app” while “tender” is just term utilized by individuals interested in long term relationships.

The Respondent submits that “tender” is a vital word that will be popularly found in the dating company since it is one of the more suitable terms for both 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 gentle. The Respondent supports this assertion with regards to screenshots from 3rd party online dating sites which it claims feature use that is extensive of term in thousands or millions of pages, the objective of that is for users to explain their individual characteristics. The Respondent adds that many individuals on online dating sites are searching for a tender single partner and for this reason certainly one of the Respondent’s internet sites is named “Tender Singles” whereby it seems sensible to learn the 2nd and top-level for the disputed website name together.

The Respondent adds that “tender” is a good trait or feature of individuals and therefore its customers may have a good reaction to this plus asserts that not all the reports about the Complainant’s TINDER mark are universally good so that it wouldn’t normally have attempt to have its web site mistaken for the Complainant’s services. The Respondent submits that the phrase “tinder” just isn’t widely utilized on 3rd party sites that are dating, where it’s been utilized, this can be as a misspelling associated with the term “tender”.

The Respondent says so it just utilizes the phrase “Tender” with its logo since this is old-fashioned for some internet sites in the place of to create out of the complete website name and therefore this additionally looks better on cellular devices because otherwise the logo design would use up the entire splash page.

The Respondent asserts it is perhaps perhaps not legitimately permissible or fair for the Complainant to get to avoid other people from using terms such as “tender”, “dating”, “singles”, “gentle”, “kind”, “cupid”, “love”, “heart”, etc. In dating sites’ names as they expressed terms are pertaining to dating. The Respondent especially submits that “tender” can not be protected for online dating services as “apple” is not protected for attempting to sell good fresh fruit.

The Respondent executes hypothetical queries regarding the “Google” search motor and produces the outcome which it states can be done when users enter terms such as for instance “tender” within their web web browser.

The Respondent claims that users will never look for “tender” by itself if hunting for the Respondent’s web site but also for “tender singles” and likewise would look perhaps not for “tinder” by itself however for “tinder app” or “tinder mobile” while looking for the Complainant’s solutions.

The Respondent asserts that the issue has been earned bad faith considering that the Complainant has not yet formerly contacted the Respondent to go over its concerns. Had it done this, the Respondent notes that it may have considered “a possible modification”, for example an “even more various font within the logo design” but says so it will not achieve this, incorporating that this might be an incident of market 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 particular information which it claims is unrelated for this matter. The Respondent notes that Bing will not let the utilization of significantly more than one AdWords account fully for a certain internet site and that it is really not possible to change the annals associated with account. The Respondent claims that the screenshots reveal all data because of its account along with a filter when it comes to term “tinder” which it states suggests that such term has not been utilized in keywords or advertisers content that is. The Respondent says that the final screenshot shows two adverts in “removed” status which it argues demonstrate that this has constantly utilized both associated with the words “tender” and “singles” within the advertisements.

The Respondent adds that the screenshot reveals that is has spent 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 websites. The Respondent claims that the majority of its traffic originates from taken care of adverts. The Respondent shows it has invested around 30percent for the typical Swiss IT employee’s wage and asks why it’s considered by the Complainant so it would do this for typo-squatting in bad faith if it didn’t trigger adverts for the term “tinder”, especially as keywords aren’t visually noticeable to an individual and that it really is legal and permitted to use the name or make of a competitor in a keyword. The Respondent submits that this shows that the Complainant’s application had not been with its head either when it called the internet site or when it labored on its marketing.

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 advertisement purchases but records that the meta tags on the site linked to the domain that is disputed have its, or its affiliates’, trademarks MATCH, A GREAT AMOUNT OF FISH and POF.

Share:Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterPin on PinterestShare on RedditShare on StumbleUponShare on Google+Share on LinkedInShare on TumblrEmail this to someone