Findings and rhetorical or questions that are hypothetical. The Panel has endeavored in summary all this product to the contentions noted below. Although this is of prerequisite an overview, the Panel records that most regarding the Respondent’s submissions had been considered inside their entirety regarding the the present 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 associated with the disputed website name, which it notes is a legitimate and typical term in English that relates and it is important to dating, with this of the hypothetical domain name which eliminates one letter from a well-known brand name hence making a meaningless typographical variation. The Respondent submits that the previous is really a good faith enrollment whilst the latter will probably be in bad faith.
The Respondent notes that the domain that is disputed really should not be viewed as a typographical variation regarding the Complainant’s mark as the replaced letters
“e” and “i” are on opposing edges of this keyboard in a way that the secrets are pushed with various hands. The Respondent adds that typo-squatting just is sensible when utilizing a “.com” domain title because browsers will include this domain immediately if just one word is entered or because online users typically add “.com” to virtually any title by muscle mass memory.
The Respondent states that it registered multiple “. Singles”, “. Dating”, “. Date”, and similar domain names when you look at the format “dating related term” dot “dating related gTLD”, noting that most of its commercial internet sites are about dating and therefore in this context “singles” is a favorite search keyword. The Respondent notes that the gTLD “. Singles” has a marketplace of internet dating which will be its section of company. The Respondent states that the disputed domain title is comparable to the others of the dating domains but not into the Complainant’s TINDER mark, including that there’s a naming pattern and therefore several had been registered in the same day. The Respondent claims it utilized the thesaurus to produce record but that it is not attached as it doesn’t trust the Complainant. The Respondent proposes to create list that is such if it’s only accessed because of the guts.
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 utilized the term “tinder” as being a keyword or in any ad content, nor have its ads imitated the Complainant’s offering, nor achieved it ever have actually the Complainant’s mark in your mind, nor has got the web site linked to the disputed domain name shown any make an effort to be linked to the Complainant or its TINDER mark. The Respondent notes that the people to its web web site see no ads and produce no earnings unless they register, contending that there is no point in it driving traffic to its website landing page where there are not any ads.
The Respondent submits that anybody whose intention have been 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 have confidence in the Complainant’s dating concept, noting that its very own concept differs from the others whereby any individual may contact just about any without matching. The Respondent claims the Complainant’s concept is just a “lookup app” while “tender” is an expressed term employed by individuals searching for long haul relationships.
The Respondent submits that “tender” is an essential term that is popularly utilized in the dating business since it is probably the most suitable terms for both native and non-native English speakers to describe by themselves or their perfect partner on internet dating sites beneath the concept of soft, delicate or mild. The Respondent supports this assertion with regards to screenshots from alternative party internet dating sites which it states function substantial utilization of this term in thousands or an incredible number of profiles, the purpose of that is for users to explain their personal attributes. The Respondent adds that many individuals on online dating sites are seeking a tender partner that is single for this reason certainly one of the Respondent’s web web sites is termed “Tender Singles” whereby it’s wise to see the next and top-level of this disputed domain title together.
The Respondent adds that “tender” is really a trait that is positive characteristic of individuals and therefore its potential audience may have an optimistic a reaction to this and 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 word “tinder” just isn’t commonly utilized on alternative party internet dating sites but, where it’s been utilized, this will be being a misspelling of this term “tender”.
The Respondent says so it just utilizes the phrase “Tender” with its logo design since this is certainly old-fashioned for some sites instead of to create out of the full website name and that this also 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 not lawfully permissible or reasonable when it comes to Complainant to get to avoid other people from utilizing words such as “tender”, “dating”, “singles”, “gentle”, “kind”, “cupid”, “love”, “heart”, etc. In dating sites’ names since these terms are pertaining to dating. The Respondent especially submits that “tender” can not be protected for dating services as “apple” may not be protected for offering fresh good fresh fruit.
The Respondent executes hypothetical queries in the “Google” search motor and creates the outcomes which it states might be done whenever users enter terms such as “tender” within their web browser.
The Respondent claims that users will never look for “tender” by itself if to locate the Respondent’s site but also 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 services.
The Respondent asserts that the grievance happens to be introduced bad faith as the Complainant has not yet formerly contacted the Respondent to talk about its issues. Had it done so, the Respondent notes that it may have considered “a feasible modification”, as an example an “even more various font within the logo design” but says so it will not do this, adding that it is 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 Google AdWords account having redacted particular information which it claims is unrelated for this matter. The Respondent notes that Bing will not enable the usage of significantly more than one AdWords account fully for a particular website and that it isn’t feasible to improve the annals for the account. The Respondent claims that the screenshots reveal all data for its account along with a filter when it comes to term “tinder” which it states indicates that such term has not been utilized in key words or advertisers’ content. The Respondent claims that the last screenshot shows two ads in “removed” status which it argues demonstrate that it offers always utilized both associated with the terms “tender” and “singles” within the advertisements.
The Respondent adds that the screenshot implies that is has invested CHF 34,382.49 on AdWords to promote the disputed website name and CHF 161,927.98 as a whole for most of its web sites. The Respondent claims that the majority of its traffic originates from taken care of adverts. The Respondent suggests so it would do so for typo-squatting in bad faith if it did not trigger advertisements for the word “tinder”, especially as keywords are not visible to the user and that it is legal and permitted to use the name or brand of a competitor in a keyword that it has spent around 30% of the average Swiss IT employee’s salary and asks why it is considered by the Complainant. The Respondent submits that this demonstrates that the Complainant’s application had not been with its brain either when it called the website or whenever it labored on its advertising.
D. Complainant’s filing that is supplemental
The Complainant records that the Respondent has tried to exhibit so it has not yet benefitted through the Complainant’s trademark via advertisement acquisitions but records that the meta data on the website from the domain that is disputed have its, or its affiliates’, trademarks MATCH, LOADS OF FISH and POF.
