Findings and rhetorical or hypothetical concerns. The Panel has endeavored to close out all this product to the contentions noted below. While this is of requisite an overview, the Panel notes that most associated with Respondent’s submissions were considered inside their entirety associated with the current choice.
The Respondent requests that the Complaint be rejected. The Respondent asserts it notes is a valid and common word in English that relates and is essential to dating, with that sexfinder 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 really a faith that is good although the latter may very well be in bad faith.
The Respondent notes that the domain that is disputed really should not be regarded as a typographical variation for the Complainant’s mark due to the fact replaced letters
“e” and “i” are on contrary edges for the keyboard so that the secrets are pushed with various fingers. The Respondent adds that typo-squatting just is practical when making use of a domain that is“.com because browsers will include this domain immediately if an individual term is entered or because individuals typically add “.com” to virtually any title by muscle tissue memory.
The Respondent states it registered multiple “. Singles”, “. Dating”, “. Date”, and comparable domain names within the format “dating related term” dot “dating associated gTLD”, noting that all its commercial web 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 target audience of internet dating which can be its part of company. The Respondent states that the disputed domain title resembles the remainder of its dating domain names not towards the Complainant’s TINDER mark, including that there surely is a naming pattern and therefore a majority of these had been registered regarding 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 provides to produce such list available if 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 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 ads and generate 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 in fact 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 believe in the Complainant’s dating concept, noting that a unique concept is different whereby any individual may contact any kind of without matching. The Respondent states the Complainant’s concept is a “lookup app” while “tender” is term employed by individuals to locate long term relationships.
The Respondent submits that “tender” is a vital term that is popularly utilized in the dating business themselves or their ideal partner on dating sites under the meaning of soft, delicate or gentle because it is one of the most suitable words for both native and non-native English speakers to describe. The Respondent supports this assertion with reference to screenshots from 3rd party internet dating sites which it claims feature substantial utilization of this word in thousands or an incredible number of profiles, the objective of which can be for users to explain their individual attributes. The Respondent adds that many individuals on internet dating sites are seeking a tender partner that is single for this reason certainly one of the Respondent’s sites is named “Tender Singles” whereby it seems sensible to read through the next and top-level for the disputed domain title together.
The Respondent adds that “tender” is a trait that is positive characteristic of individuals and therefore its potential audience may have a confident reaction to this plus asserts that only a few reports concerning 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 term “tinder” is certainly not commonly utilized on alternative party sites that are dating, where it’s been utilized, this really is as being a misspelling associated with term “tender”.
The Respondent claims so it only utilizes the phrase “Tender” with its logo design since this might be traditional for many websites in the place of to set out of the complete website name and therefore this additionally looks better on mobile phones because otherwise the logo design would take up the entire squeeze page.
The Respondent asserts it is maybe perhaps not legitimately permissible or reasonable when it comes to Complainant to get to avoid other people from utilizing terms such as “tender”, “dating”, “singles”, “gentle”, “kind”, “cupid”, “love”, “heart”, etc. In dating sites’ names since these terms are associated with dating. The Respondent especially submits that “tender” can not be protected for online dating services as “apple” may not be protected for offering good fresh fruit.
The Respondent executes hypothetical queries from the “Google” search motor and creates the outcomes which it says could be performed whenever users enter terms such as for instance “tender” within their web browser.
The Respondent claims that users will never look for “tender” on its own if to locate the Respondent’s web site but also for “tender singles” and similarly would look not for “tinder” on its own however for “tinder app” or “tinder mobile” while looking for the Complainant’s solutions.
The Respondent asserts that the grievance is earned bad faith since the Complainant has not yet formerly contacted the Respondent to go over its issues. Had it done so, the Respondent notes that it may have considered “a feasible modification”, for instance an “even more various font into the logo design” but says so it will not do this, including that it is an instance of an industry frontrunner attempting to intimidate a startup.
C. Respondent’s extra distribution to reaction
The Respondent provides four screenshots from its Bing AdWords account having redacted information that is certain it says 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 particular site and that it’s not feasible to change the real history for the account. The Respondent claims that the screenshots reveal all data because of its account along with a filter for the word “tinder” which it says suggests that such term never been utilized in keywords or advertisers’ content. The Respondent claims that the final screenshot shows two ads in “removed” status which it argues demonstrate that it offers constantly used each of the words “tender” and “singles” into the ads.
The Respondent adds that the screenshot demonstrates that is has spent 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 says that the majority of its traffic originates from taken care of adverts. The Respondent indicates so it has invested around 30% associated with typical Swiss IT employee’s income and asks why its considered by the Complainant so it would achieve this for typo-squatting in bad faith if it didn’t trigger adverts for the word “tinder”, specially as key words aren’t visually noticeable to the consumer and therefore it really is legal and permitted to use the title or make of a competitor in a keyword. The Respondent submits that this demonstrates that the Complainant’s software wasn’t in its head either whenever it called the web site or whenever it labored on its advertising.
D. Complainant’s supplemental filing
The Complainant notes that the Respondent has attempted to demonstrate it have not benefitted through the Complainant’s trademark via advertisement acquisitions but records that the meta data on the internet site from the domain that is disputed have its, or its affiliates’, trademarks MATCH, AN ABUNDANCE OF FISH and POF.