Findings and rhetorical or questions that are hypothetical. The Panel has endeavored in summary all this product in to the contentions noted below. A summary, the Panel notes that all of the Respondent’s submissions were considered in their entirety in connection with the present Decision while this is of necessity.
The Respondent requests that the Complaint be rejected. The Respondent asserts it is perhaps not engaged in typo-squatting and contrasts the career regarding the disputed website name, which it notes is a legitimate and typical word in English that applies and it is necessary to dating, with this of the hypothetical domain title which removes one page from the well-known brand name therefore making a meaningless typographical variation. The Respondent submits that the previous is a good faith enrollment 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 of this 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 hands. The Respondent adds that typo-squatting just is practical when working with a domain that is“.com because browsers will add this domain immediately if an individual 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 similar domain names when you look at the format “dating related term” dot “dating associated gTLD”, noting that most of its commercial web sites are about dating and that in this context “singles” is a well known search keyword. Continue reading