Findings and rhetorical or hypothetical concerns. The Panel has endeavored to conclude all of 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 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 even though the latter may very well be in bad faith.
The Respondent notes that the domain that is disputed really should not be viewed as a typographical variation associated with the Complainant’s mark since the replaced letters
“e” and “i” are on contrary edges associated with keyboard in a way that the tips are pushed with various arms. The Respondent adds that typo-squatting only is sensible when utilizing a domain that is“.com because browsers will include this domain automatically if just one word is entered or because online users typically add “.com” to virtually any title by muscle memory.
The Respondent states it registered multiple “. Singles”, “. Dating”, “. Date”, and comparable domains into the format “dating related term” dot “dating related gTLD”, noting that most of its commercial sites are about dating and therefore in this context “singles” is a well known search keyword.