Findings and rhetorical or hypothetical questions. The Panel has endeavored in summary all this material in 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 is maybe not engaged in typo-squatting and contrasts the positioning associated with the disputed website name, which it notes is a legitimate and typical term in English that applies and it is important to dating, with this of the hypothetical website name which eliminates one page from a well-known brand name therefore making a meaningless typographical variation. The Respondent submits that the previous is really a faith that is good even though the latter is going to be in bad faith.
The Respondent notes that the disputed domain name really should not be viewed as a typographical variant of this Complainant’s mark due to the fact replaced letters
“e” and “i” are on reverse sides regarding the keyboard in a way that the secrets are pushed with different arms. The Respondent adds that typo-squatting only is practical when working with a domain that is“.com because browsers will include this domain immediately if an individual term is entered or because internet surfers typically add “.com” to virtually any title by muscle mass memory.
The Respondent states it registered multiple “. Singles”, “. Dating”, “. Date”, and comparable domain names within the format “dating related word” dot “dating associated gTLD”, noting that most of its commercial web 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 internet dating which can be its section of company. The Respondent states that the disputed website name is comparable to the remainder of the dating domain names yet not to your Complainant’s TINDER mark, incorporating that there surely is a naming pattern and that a majority of these had been registered in 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 provides to produce such list available when it is only accessed because of the middle.
The Respondent says 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 utilized the phrase “tinder” as being a keyword or perhaps in any ad content, nor have its ads imitated the Complainant’s providing, nor achieved it ever have the Complainant’s mark at heart, nor has got the site from the disputed domain name shown any try to be from the Complainant or its TINDER mark. The Respondent notes that the people to its web web site see no ads and generate no income unless they subscribe, contending that there is no part of it driving traffic to its website landing page where there aren’t any ads.
The Respondent submits that anyone whose intention was indeed typo-squatting could have utilized a “tinder” keyword. The Respondent states that unlike the Complainant it doesn’t develop mobile applications, nor does the Respondent have confidence in the Complainant’s dating concept, noting that a unique concept is significantly diffent whereby any individual may contact just about any without matching. The Respondent states the Complainant’s concept is really a “lookup app” while “tender” is really term employed by individuals hunting for long haul relationships.
The Respondent submits that “tender” is a vital term which can be popularly utilized in the dating company since it is the most suitable terms for both indigenous and non-native English speakers to spell it out on their own or their ideal partner on internet dating sites beneath the concept of soft, delicate or mild. The Respondent supports this assertion with regards to screenshots from 3rd party internet dating sites which it claims feature use that is extensive of term in thousands or an incredible number of profiles, the objective of which will be for users to explain their individual characteristics. The Respondent adds that many individuals on internet dating sites are searching for a tender partner that is single for this reason certainly one of the Respondent’s sites is termed “Tender Singles” whereby it’s a good idea to see the next and top-level associated with the disputed website name together.
The Respondent adds that “tender” is a good trait or feature of individuals and that its potential audience could have an optimistic reaction to this plus asserts that not absolutely all reports about the Complainant’s TINDER mark are universally good so that it wouldn’t normally have attempted to have its web web site mistaken for the Complainant’s solutions. The Respondent submits that the phrase “tinder” isn’t commonly used on alternative party sites that are dating, where it’s been utilized, this can be being a misspelling of this term “tender”.
The Respondent claims so it just utilizes the word “Tender” in its logo design since this is certainly mainstream for many sites in place of to create out of the complete domain title 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 not lawfully permissible or reasonable when it comes to Complainant to get to avoid other people from making use of words such as “tender”, “dating”, “singles”, “gentle”, “kind”, “cupid”, “love”, “heart”, etc. In dating sites’ names since these expressed words are pertaining to dating. The Respondent especially submits that “tender” is not protected for online dating services as “apple” is not protected for selling good fresh fruit.
The Respondent does hypothetical searches in the “Google” search motor and produces the outcome which it claims can be done whenever users enter terms such as for instance “tender” within their browser.
The Respondent claims that users wouldn’t normally look for “tender” by itself if interested in the Respondent’s web site but also for “tender singles” and similarly would look perhaps maybe not for “tinder” by itself but also for “tinder app” or “tinder mobile” while looking for the Complainant’s solutions.
The Respondent asserts that the issue happens to be earned bad faith since the Complainant has not yet formerly contacted the Respondent to go over its issues. Had it done this, the Respondent notes that it could have considered “a possible modification”, as an example an “even more different font within the logo design” but says so it will no longer achieve this, including that this might be a instance of an industry frontrunner wanting 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 to the matter. The Respondent notes that Google will not let the usage of significantly more than one AdWords account fully for a certain web site and that it is really not feasible to change the annals associated with the account. The Respondent claims that the screenshots reveal all data for the account as well as a filter when it comes to term “tinder” which it states suggests that such term has not been utilized in key words or advertisers’ content. The Respondent claims that the screenshot that is final two adverts in “removed” status which it argues demonstrate that it offers constantly utilized each regarding the terms “tender” and “singles” within the ads.
The Respondent adds that the screenshot suggests that is has spent CHF 34,382.49 on AdWords to promote the disputed website name and CHF 161,927.98 in total for each of its sites. The Respondent claims that the majority of its traffic originates from taken care of adverts. The Respondent shows so it has invested around 30% of this normal Swiss IT employee’s income and asks why it really is considered by the Complainant so it would achieve this for typo-squatting in bad faith if it didn’t trigger adverts for the term “tinder”, particularly http://besthookupwebsites.net/bbpeoplemeet-review/ as keywords aren’t visually noticeable to the consumer 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 demonstrates that the Complainant’s app had not been in its brain either whenever it named the internet site or when it done its marketing.
D. Complainant’s filing that is supplemental
The Complainant notes that the Respondent has attempted to exhibit so it have not benefitted from the Complainant’s trademark via ad acquisitions but records that the meta data on the internet site linked to the domain that is disputed have its, or its affiliates’, trademarks MATCH, LOADS OF FISH and POF.