Findings and rhetorical or questions that are hypothetical. The Panel has endeavored in summary all this product in to the contentions noted below. While this is of necessity a synopsis, the Panel records that most associated with Respondent’s submissions were considered inside their entirety regarding the the current choice.
The Respondent requests that the Complaint be rejected. The Respondent asserts it is not engaged in typo-squatting and contrasts the career of this 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 title which eliminates one page from the well-known brand name therefore making a meaningless typographical variation. The Respondent submits that the previous is really a faith that is good as the latter will be in bad faith.
The Respondent notes that the domain that is disputed really should not be viewed as a typographical variation for the Complainant’s mark since the replaced letters
“e” and “i” are on contrary edges for the keyboard so that the tips are pushed with various arms. The Respondent adds that typo-squatting just is reasonable when utilizing a domain that is“.com because browsers will include this domain immediately if just one 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 all its commercial sites are about dating and therefore in this context “singles” is a well known 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 website name is comparable to the others of their dating domain names yet not into the Complainant’s TINDER mark, incorporating there is a naming pattern and that many of these had been registered from 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 proposes to make list that is such if it’s only accessed because of the middle.
The Respondent says that it runs not as much as a dozen internet sites and submits that the traffic to such web sites outcomes from compensated adverts and going back users, incorporating so it has invested huge amounts of cash on each website over years, perhaps before the Complainant having any internet site. The Respondent adds it ever have the Complainant’s mark in mind, nor has the website associated with the disputed domain name shown any attempt to be associated with the Complainant or its TINDER mark that it has never used the word “tinder” as a keyword or in any advertisement content, nor have its advertisements imitated the Complainant’s offering, nor did. The Respondent notes that the people to its site see no advertisements and produce no earnings unless they register, contending that there is no part of it driving traffic to its splash page where there aren’t any ads.
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 will not develop mobile applications, nor does the Respondent rely on the Complainant’s dating concept, noting that a unique concept is significantly diffent whereby any individual may contact every other without matching. The Respondent states the Complainant’s concept is really a “lookup app” while “tender” is just an expressed term employed by people in search of long haul relationships.
The Respondent submits that “tender” is an essential term that is popularly utilized in the dating company since it is the most suitable terms for both native and non-native English speakers to explain 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 3rd party online dating sites which it states feature substantial utilization of this term in thousands or an incredible number of pages, the objective of which will be 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 this is the reason certainly one of the Respondent’s web sites is termed “Tender Singles” whereby it’s a good idea to see the next and top-level of this disputed website name together.
The Respondent adds that “tender” is just a good trait or feature of individuals and that its potential audience may have a confident a reaction to this plus asserts that not all the reports in connection with Complainant’s TINDER mark are universally positive so that it wouldn’t normally have attempted to have its site mistaken for the Complainant’s solutions. The Respondent submits that the term “tinder” is certainly not commonly applied to 3rd party sites that are dating, where it’s been utilized, that is being a misspelling regarding the term “tender”.
The Respondent claims so it just utilizes the term “Tender” in its logo design since this is traditional for some sites instead of setting out of the complete website name and therefore this additionally looks better on cellular devices because otherwise the logo would use up the entire splash page.
The Respondent asserts that it’s maybe perhaps not legitimately permissible or reasonable for the Complainant to find to avoid other people from making use of terms such as “tender”, “dating”, “singles”, “gentle”, “kind”, “cupid”, “love”, “heart”, etc. In dating sites’ names since these words are pertaining to dating. The Respondent especially submits that “tender” can not be protected for online dating services as “apple” may not be protected for attempting to sell good fresh fruit.
The Respondent works hypothetical queries in the “Google” search motor and creates the outcomes which it claims might be done whenever users enter terms such as for instance “tender” within their web browser.
The Respondent claims that users will never look for “tender” by itself if shopping for the Respondent’s site but also for “tender singles” and likewise would look maybe not for “tinder” by itself however for “tinder app” or “tinder mobile” when searching for the Complainant’s solutions.
The Respondent asserts that the issue is earned bad faith due to the fact Complainant have not previously contacted the Respondent to talk about its concerns. Had it done this, the Respondent notes that it may have considered “a feasible modification”, for instance an “even more different font when you look at the logo” but says so it will not do this, including that this will be an incident of an industry frontrunner wanting to intimidate a startup.
C. Respondent’s extra submission to reaction
The Respondent provides four screenshots from the Bing AdWords account having redacted information that is certain it states is unrelated for this matter. The Respondent notes that Bing will not let the usage of more than one AdWords account fully for a particular internet site and that it isn’t feasible to change the real history for the account. The Respondent says that the screenshots reveal all data for the account along with a filter for the term “tinder” which it states indicates that such term has not been found in keywords or advertisers content that is. The Respondent claims that the last screenshot shows two ads in “removed” status which it argues demonstrate that it’s constantly used each of the terms “tender” and “singles” into the adverts.
The Respondent adds that the screenshot implies 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 says that the majority of its traffic originates from paid for adverts. The Respondent indicates so it has invested around 30percent of this typical Swiss IT employee’s salary 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 ads when it comes to term “tinder”, specially as key words aren’t visible to an individual and therefore it really 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 application had not been with its head either whenever it called the web site or when it labored on its advertising.
D. Complainant’s filing that is supplemental
The Complainant records that the Respondent has attempted to exhibit so it hasn’t benefitted through the Complainant’s trademark via ad acquisitions but notes that the meta data on the site linked to the domain that is disputed have its, or its affiliates’, trademarks MATCH, LOADS OF FISH and POF.