Findings and rhetorical or hypothetical questions. The Panel has endeavored in summary all this material to the contentions noted below. While this is of necessity an overview, the Panel records that most associated with the Respondent’s submissions had been considered within their entirety regarding the the current Decision.
The Respondent requests that the Complaint be denied. The Respondent asserts it is perhaps not engaged in typo-squatting and contrasts the career associated with the disputed website name, which it notes is a legitimate and common term in English that applies and is necessary to dating, with that of the hypothetical domain title which eliminates one page from a well-known brand name hence leaving a meaningless typographical variation. The Respondent submits that the previous is a good faith registration although the latter may very well be in bad faith.
The Respondent notes that the disputed domain name shouldn’t be regarded as a typographical variation for the Complainant’s mark due to the fact replaced letters
“e” and “i” are on other edges regarding the keyboard in a way that the keys are pressed with various fingers. The Respondent adds that typo-squatting just is reasonable when working with a “.com” domain name because browsers will add this domain immediately if just one word is entered or because internet surfers typically add “.com” to virtually any title by muscle mass memory.
The Respondent https://besthookupwebsites.net/wantmatures-review/ states that it registered multiple “. Singles”, “. Dating”, “. Date”, and comparable domain names within the format “dating related term” dot “dating associated 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 target audience of internet dating which can be its part of company. The Respondent states that the disputed website name resembles the remainder of its dating domain names yet not into the Complainant’s TINDER mark, incorporating that there’s a naming pattern and that a number of these had been registered regarding the day that is same. The Respondent claims so it utilized the thesaurus to produce record but that this isn’t attached given that it does not trust the Complainant. The Respondent proposes to produce list that is such if it is only accessed because of the guts.
The Respondent claims so it operates significantly less than a dozen sites and submits that the traffic to such internet sites outcomes from compensated adverts and coming back users, incorporating so it has invested a lot of income on each site over years, possibly ahead of the Complainant having any site. The Respondent adds so it hasn’t utilized the term “tinder” as being a keyword or perhaps in any ad content, nor have its adverts imitated the Complainant’s providing, 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 try to be from the Complainant or its TINDER mark. The Respondent notes that the people to its site see no ads and produce no earnings unless they sign up, contending that there is no point in it driving traffic to its website landing page where there are not any adverts.
The Respondent submits that anybody whose intention was in fact typo-squatting could have used a “tinder” keyword. The Respondent states that unlike the Complainant it doesn’t develop mobile applications, nor does the Respondent rely on the Complainant’s dating concept, noting that a unique concept is significantly diffent whereby any user may contact virtually any without matching. The Respondent claims the Complainant’s concept is just a “lookup app” while “tender” is really an expressed term employed by people searching for long term relationships.
The Respondent submits that “tender” is a vital term that is popularly utilized in the dating business since it is perhaps one of the most suitable terms both for native and non-native English speakers to spell it out 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 use that is extensive of term in thousands or an incredible number of pages, the goal of that is for users to spell it out their individual characteristics. The Respondent adds that many people on online dating sites are searching for a tender partner that is single for this reason certainly one of the Respondent’s internet internet sites is termed “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 just a trait that is positive characteristic of individuals and that its potential audience need an optimistic reaction to this plus asserts that not absolutely all reports in connection with Complainant’s TINDER mark are universally good so that it will never have attempted to have its site mistaken for the Complainant’s solutions. The Respondent submits that the phrase “tinder” just isn’t commonly utilized on alternative party online dating sites but, where it’s been utilized, this will be as being a misspelling regarding the word “tender”.
The Respondent claims so it just utilizes the phrase “Tender” in its logo design as that is traditional for many internet sites instead of setting out of the complete website name and therefore this additionally looks better on cellular devices because otherwise the logo design would occupy the landing page that is whole.
The Respondent asserts it is maybe not legitimately permissible or fair for the 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” is not protected for online dating services as “apple” can not be protected for attempting to sell good fresh fruit.
The Respondent does hypothetical queries in the “Google” search motor and creates the outcomes which it claims might be performed whenever users enter terms such as for instance “tender” within their browser.
The Respondent says that users wouldn’t normally search for “tender” by itself if to locate the Respondent’s web site but also for “tender singles” and likewise would look 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 Complaint was earned bad faith as the Complainant have not formerly contacted the Respondent to talk about its issues. Had it done this, the Respondent notes that it could have considered “a feasible modification”, for instance an “even more different font when you look at the logo” but says so it will not achieve this, incorporating that this can be an incident of an industry frontrunner wanting to intimidate a startup.
C. Respondent’s extra distribution to reaction
The Respondent provides four screenshots from the Bing AdWords account having redacted certain information which it states is unrelated to the 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 isn’t possible to change a brief history of this 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 states shows that such term has not been found in key words or advertisers’ content. The Respondent says that the last screenshot shows two adverts in “removed” status which it argues demonstrate that it offers always utilized each of this terms “tender” and “singles” within the ads.
The Respondent adds that the screenshot indicates 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 all of its internet sites. The Respondent claims that the majority of its traffic arises from taken care of adverts. The Respondent suggests it has invested around 30% of this 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 when it comes to term “tinder”, specially as key words are not noticeable to the user and that it 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 software had not been with its head either whenever it known as the internet site or when it done its advertising.
D. Complainant’s supplemental filing
The Complainant notes that the Respondent has tried to exhibit so it have not benefitted through the Complainant’s trademark via ad acquisitions but records that the meta tags on the site linked to the disputed domain title have its, or its affiliates’, trademarks MATCH, A LOT OF FISH and POF.