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 associated with Respondent’s submissions had been considered within their entirety relating to the current 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 disputed website name, which it notes is a legitimate and typical term in English that applies and is important to dating, with that of the hypothetical domain title which eliminates one page from a well-known brand name therefore making a meaningless typographical variation. The Respondent submits that the previous is just a faith that is good although 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 regarding the Complainant’s mark since the replaced letters
“e” and “i” are on opposing edges for the keyboard in a way that the secrets are pushed with various arms. The Respondent adds that typo-squatting just is sensible when working with a “.com” website name because browsers will add this domain immediately if an individual term is entered or because internet surfers typically add “.com” to 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 related gTLD”, noting that most of its commercial 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 domain title is comparable to the rest of their dating domain names however into the Complainant’s TINDER mark, including that there surely is a naming pattern and therefore a number of these were registered from the same day. The Respondent says 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 create list that is such in case it is just accessed by the Center.
The Respondent says so it runs not as much as a dozen websites and submits that the traffic to such internet sites outcomes from compensated adverts and coming back users, adding so it has spent a lot of money for 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 ads and generate no income unless they join, contending that there is no part of it driving visitors to its website landing 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 have confidence in the Complainant’s concept that is dating noting that a unique concept differs from the others whereby any user may contact any kind of without matching. The Respondent claims the Complainant’s concept is really a “lookup app” while “tender” is an expressed word employed by individuals in search of long haul relationships.
The Respondent submits that “tender” is a vital term which can be popularly utilized in the dating company 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 regards to screenshots from alternative party online dating sites which it claims function substantial utilization of this term in thousands or an incredible number of pages, the goal of which will be for users to spell it out their individual characteristics. The Respondent adds that a lot of individuals on online dating sites are searching for a tender single partner and this is the reason one of the Respondent’s sites is termed “Tender Singles” whereby it seems sensible to see the next and top-level associated with disputed website name together.
The Respondent adds that “tender” is really a trait that is positive characteristic of individuals and that its potential audience has a confident a reaction to this and asserts that not totally all reports about the Complainant’s TINDER mark are universally good so that it will never have attempt to have its site confused with the Complainant’s solutions. The Respondent submits that the term “tinder” is certainly not commonly applied to alternative party online dating sites but, where it’s been utilized, this can be as being a misspelling associated with the term “tender”.
The Respondent claims that it just makes use of the phrase “Tender” in its logo design since this will be old-fashioned for many web sites in the place of setting out of the full domain title and that this additionally looks better on mobile phones because otherwise the logo design would occupy the entire squeeze page.
The Respondent asserts that it’s perhaps perhaps not legitimately permissible or fair when it comes to 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 as they terms are associated with dating. The Respondent especially submits that “tender” cannot be protected for dating services as “apple” may not be protected for offering good fresh fruit.
The Respondent performs hypothetical queries regarding the “Google” search engine and creates the outcome which it claims can be done whenever users enter terms such as for instance “tender” within their web web browser.
The Respondent claims that users will never look for “tender” by itself if searching for the Respondent’s web site but also for “tender singles” and similarly would look perhaps not for “tinder” on its own but also for “tinder app” or “tinder mobile” when searching for the Complainant’s services.
The Respondent asserts that the issue is introduced bad faith considering that 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 various font into the logo design” but says so it will not do this, including that this is certainly an incident of an industry frontrunner trying to intimidate a startup.
C. Respondent’s submission that is additional reaction
The Respondent provides four screenshots from the Bing AdWords account having redacted information that is certain it claims is unrelated to the 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 is really not possible to improve a brief history for 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 claims shows that such term never been found in key words or advertisers content that is. The Respondent claims that the last screenshot shows two ads in “removed” status which it argues demonstrate that this has always utilized both of this terms “tender” and “singles” into the adverts.
The Respondent adds that the screenshot demonstrates that is has spent CHF 34,382.49 on AdWords to promote the disputed domain title and CHF 161,927.98 as a whole for every one of its internet sites. The Respondent says that the majority of its traffic originates from taken care of ads. The Respondent suggests so it has invested around 30percent of this normal Swiss IT employee’s wage and asks why it is considered by the Complainant so it would do this for typo-squatting in bad faith if it didn’t trigger ads for the term “tinder”, specially as key words are not noticeable to an individual 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 app had not been in its mind either whenever it known as the internet site or whenever it labored on its advertising.
D. Complainant’s supplemental filing
The Complainant records that the Respondent has attempted to demonstrate that it have not benefitted from the Complainant’s trademark via ad acquisitions but notes that the meta tags on the site linked to the disputed domain name contain its, or its affiliates’, trademarks MATCH, AN ABUNDANCE OF FISH and POF.