Observations and rhetorical or questions that are hypothetical. The Panel has endeavored to close out 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 denied. The Respondent asserts that it’s not engaged in typo-squatting and contrasts the career regarding the disputed website name, which it notes is a legitimate and typical term in English that applies and it is important to dating, with that of the hypothetical domain title which eliminates one letter from the well-known brand name hence making a meaningless typographical variant. The Respondent submits that the previous is a faith that is good whilst the latter is going to be in bad faith.
The Respondent notes that the domain that is disputed really should not be seen as a typographical variation associated with the Complainant’s mark due to the fact replaced letters
“e” and “i” are on opposing edges for the keyboard so that the tips are pushed with various arms. The Respondent adds that typo-squatting just is sensible when utilizing a “.com” website name because browsers will add this domain immediately if just one term is entered or because internet surfers typically add “.com” to virtually any title by muscle memory.
The Respondent states it registered multiple “. Singles”, “. Dating”, “. Date”, and comparable domain names into the format “dating related word” dot “dating associated gTLD”, noting that most of its commercial internet sites are about dating and therefore in this context “singles” is a well known search keyword. 继续阅读B. Respondent The Panel notes that the reaction happens to be ready in a method which can be referred to as conversational or discursive in nature and possesses comments that are many