Observations and rhetorical or questions that are hypothetical. The Panel has endeavored to close out all this product 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 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 former is really a good faith enrollment whilst the latter may very well be in bad faith.
The Respondent notes that the disputed domain title really should not be regarded as a typographical variation associated with Complainant’s mark due to the fact substituted letters
“e” and “i” are on other edges regarding the keyboard in a way that the secrets are pushed with various fingers. The Respondent adds that typo-squatting just is practical when utilizing a “.com” domain title because browsers will add this domain automatically if an individual word 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 similar domains into the format “dating related word” dot “dating associated gTLD”, noting that most of its commercial sites are about dating and that in this context “singles” is a favorite search keyword. Continue reading “B. Respondent The Panel notes that the Response happens to be ready in a method that will be called conversational or discursive in the wild and contains numerous reviews,”