B. Respondent The Panel notes that the reaction was prepared in a method that will be called conversational or discursive in general and possesses numerous comments,
Findings and rhetorical or hypothetical questions. The Panel has endeavored to conclude all this product in to the contentions noted below. While 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 current Decision.
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 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 will probably be in bad faith.
The Respondent notes that the disputed website name shouldn’t be viewed as a typographical variation associated with the Complainant’s mark because the substituted letters
“e” and “i” are on contrary sides regarding the keyboard in a way that the tips are pressed with various fingers. The Respondent adds that typo-squatting just is reasonable when utilizing a “.com” domain title because browsers will include this domain immediately if an individual word is entered or because online users typically add “.com” to virtually any name by muscle tissue memory.
The Respondent states it registered multiple “. Singles”, “. Dating”, “. Date”, and comparable domains into the format “dating related term” dot “dating associated gTLD”, noting that all its commercial internet sites are about dating and that in this context “singles” is a favorite search keyword. The Respondent notes that the gTLD “. Singles” has a target market 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 yet not to your Complainant’s TINDER mark, including that there’s a naming pattern and that a number of these had been registered from the day that is same. The Respondent claims so it used the thesaurus to generate the list but that this isn’t attached as it will not trust the Complainant. The Respondent offers to make list that is such when it is just accessed because of the middle.
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 produce no income 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 have confidence in the Complainant’s concept that is dating noting that unique concept is significantly diffent whereby any individual may contact some other without matching. The Respondent claims the Complainant’s concept is really a “lookup app” while “tender” is just word used by individuals interested in long term relationships.
The Respondent submits that “tender” is a vital term that will be popularly utilized in the dating business since it is the most suitable terms for both indigenous and non-native English speakers to explain on their own or their perfect partner on online 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 claims function considerable utilization of this term in thousands or an incredible number of pages, the objective of that is for users to explain their individual characteristics. 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 internet sites is termed “Tender Singles” whereby it’s wise to see the next and top-level for the disputed domain title together.
The Respondent adds that “tender” is really a trait that is positive feature of individuals and that its market may have a confident reaction to this plus asserts that not totally all reports about the Complainant’s TINDER mark are universally good so that it wouldn’t normally have attempt to have its site mistaken for the Complainant’s solutions. The Respondent submits that the term “tinder” is certainly not widely applied to alternative party online dating sites but, where it is often utilized, this is certainly as being a misspelling for the term “tender”.
The Respondent claims so it just utilizes the term “Tender” in its logo as this is certainly main-stream for many internet sites in the place of to create out of the full website name and therefore this additionally looks better on mobile phones because otherwise the logo design would use up the landing page that is whole.
The Respondent asserts it is maybe perhaps not legitimately permissible or reasonable for the Complainant to get to avoid others from making use of terms such as “tender”, “dating”, “singles”, “gentle”, “kind”, “cupid”, “love”, “heart”, etc. In dating sites’ names since these expressed terms are pertaining to dating. The Respondent especially submits that “tender” is not protected for dating services as “apple” may not be protected for attempting to sell fruit.
The Respondent does hypothetical queries from the “Google” search motor and creates the outcomes which it claims might be performed whenever users enter terms such as for instance “tender” into their web browser.
The Respondent claims that users wouldn’t normally look for “tender” by itself if searching for the Respondent’s site but also for “tender singles” and likewise would look maybe maybe not for “tinder” by itself however for “tinder app” or “tinder mobile” when searching for the Complainant’s services.
The Respondent asserts that the issue happens to be earned bad faith since the Complainant have not formerly contacted the Respondent to talk about its issues. Had it done this, 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 that it will not achieve this, including that this will be an instance of market leader wanting to intimidate a startup.
C. Respondent’s extra submission to Response
The Respondent provides four screenshots from the Google AdWords account having redacted certain information which it claims is unrelated for this matter. The Respondent notes that Bing will not let the usage of significantly more than one AdWords account fully for a specific internet site and that it is really not feasible to improve the annals associated with account. The Respondent says that the screenshots reveal all data for the account along with a filter for the term “tinder” which it claims shows that such term has not been found in key words or advertisers content that is. The Respondent claims that the screenshot that is final two adverts in “removed” status which it argues demonstrate that it offers always utilized each of this terms “tender” and “singles” into the adverts.
The Respondent adds that the screenshot implies that is has invested 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 meetme. The Respondent claims that the majority of its traffic arises from taken care of ads. The Respondent suggests it has invested around 30% of this normal Swiss IT employee’s income and asks why it really is considered by the Complainant so it would do so for typo-squatting in bad faith if it didn’t trigger ads when it comes to term “tinder”, specially as key words aren’t visually noticeable to the consumer and that it really is legal and permitted to use the name 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 internet site or whenever it labored on its advertising.
D. Complainant’s supplemental filing
The Complainant records that the Respondent has attempted to demonstrate so it has not benefitted through the Complainant’s trademark via ad purchases but records that the meta data on the internet site from the disputed domain title have its, or its affiliates’, trademarks MATCH, AN ABUNDANCE OF FISH and POF.