Findings and rhetorical or hypothetical questions. The Panel has endeavored in summary all this product to the contentions noted below. While this is of necessity a synopsis, the Panel records that most regarding the bondage.com Respondent’s submissions had been 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 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 just a faith that is good as the latter may very well be in bad faith.
The Respondent notes that the disputed website name shouldn’t be regarded as a typographical variation for the Complainant’s mark since the replaced letters
“e” and “i” are on reverse edges regarding the keyboard in a way that the tips are pushed with different fingers. The Respondent adds that typo-squatting just is sensible when making use of a “.com” website name because browsers will include this domain immediately if just one word is entered or because internet surfers typically add “.com” to virtually any title by muscle tissue memory.
The Respondent states that it registered multiple “. Singles”, “. Dating”, “. Date”, and similar domains when you look at the format “dating related term” dot “dating associated gTLD”, noting that all its commercial web sites are about dating and that in this context “singles” is a well known search keyword. The Respondent notes that the gTLD “. Singles” has a target audience of online dating which can be its section of company. The Respondent states that the disputed domain name resembles the others of its dating domain names not to the Complainant’s TINDER mark, incorporating that there’s a naming pattern and that a number of these had been registered regarding the same day. 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 create such list available in case it is only accessed by 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 web site see no adverts and generate 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 anyone whose intention have been 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 its very own concept is significantly diffent whereby any user may contact virtually any without matching. The Respondent states the Complainant’s concept is just a “lookup app” while “tender” is an expressed term employed by individuals hunting for long haul relationships.
The Respondent submits that “tender” is a vital word that is popularly utilized in the dating business since it is perhaps one of the most suitable terms both for indigenous and non-native English speakers to spell it out on their own or their perfect partner on internet dating sites under the meaning 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 scores of pages, the goal of that will be for users to explain their individual characteristics. The Respondent adds that a lot of individuals on online dating sites are looking for a tender partner that is single this is the reason certainly one of the Respondent’s internet sites is termed “Tender Singles” whereby it’s a good idea to learn the 2nd and top-level regarding the disputed website name together.
The Respondent adds that “tender” is a trait that is positive feature of individuals and that its potential audience could have a good a reaction to this plus asserts that not absolutely all reports concerning the Complainant’s TINDER mark are universally good such that it will never have attempt to have its web site confused with the Complainant’s solutions. The Respondent submits that the phrase “tinder” just isn’t commonly utilized on 3rd party online dating sites but, where it is often utilized, that is as being a misspelling regarding the term “tender”.
The Respondent claims so it only uses the phrase “Tender” with its logo design as this really is traditional for many internet sites in place of to create out of the full domain title and therefore this additionally looks better on cellular devices because otherwise the logo design would use up the landing page that is whole.
The Respondent asserts that it’s maybe perhaps not lawfully permissible or fair for the Complainant to find to stop other people from making use of words such as “tender”, “dating”, “singles”, “gentle”, “kind”, “cupid”, “love”, “heart”, etc. In dating sites’ names since these expressed terms are regarding dating. The Respondent especially submits that “tender” can not be protected for dating services as “apple” can not be protected for offering fruit.
The Respondent executes hypothetical queries from the “Google” search motor and produces the outcomes which it states might be done whenever users enter terms such as for instance “tender” within their web browser.
The Respondent claims that users wouldn’t normally look for “tender” by itself if in search of the Respondent’s web web site but also for “tender singles” and similarly would look maybe maybe 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 problem 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 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 do this, incorporating that this will be 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 Google AdWords account having redacted particular information which it claims is unrelated to the matter. The Respondent notes that Bing doesn’t enable the utilization of more than one AdWords account fully for a particular internet site and that it’s not feasible to change the annals 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 claims suggests that such word hasn’t been utilized in keywords or advertisers content that is. The Respondent claims that the final screenshot shows two adverts in “removed” status which it argues demonstrate that it’s constantly utilized each associated with terms “tender” and “singles” in the adverts.
The Respondent adds that the screenshot implies 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 every one of its internet sites. The Respondent claims that the majority of its traffic originates from taken care of adverts. The Respondent indicates so it would do so for typo-squatting in bad faith if it did not trigger advertisements for the word “tinder”, especially as keywords are not visible to the user and that it is legal and permitted to use the name or brand of a competitor in a keyword that it has spent around 30% of the average Swiss IT employee’s salary and asks why it is considered by the Complainant. The Respondent submits that this shows that the Complainant’s application had not been in its brain either whenever it called the internet site or whenever it labored on its advertising.
D. Complainant’s supplemental filing
The Complainant notes that the Respondent has tried to exhibit so it has not yet benefitted through the Complainant’s trademark via ad purchases but notes that the meta tags on the site from the domain that is disputed contain its, or its affiliates’, trademarks MATCH, AN ABUNDANCE OF FISH and POF.