Datingdirect com search
The Complainant’s solicitors sent a cease and desist email, on 12 July 2005, to the Respondent to which the Registrant responded as follows: ”there are many thousands of domain names out there that use 'direct' in there domain names. The Complainant also relies on the fact that, as explained below, the Respondent clearly set out to attract business intended for the Complainant. nor the suffix ‘.com’ detract from the overall impression of the dominant part of the name in each case, namely the trademark SONY” and thus Policy ¶4(a)(i) is satisfied)Mutiplex Case, the Top-pile Case, the Turner Case and the Bailey Case) mentioned in paragraph 19 where a descriptive word added to the Complainant’s trade mark did not diminish confusing similarity. The Respondent declined to offer an explanation for its registration of the Domain in its written response to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter (other than to claim that “there are many thousands of domain names out there that use 'direct' in there domain names”). 4, 2000) (finding that the complainant has common law rights in BROADCASTAMERICA. Forum May 9, 2000) (finding, while the complainant had registered the BIBBERO SYSTEMS, INC.
Such activity by the Respondent presupposes that the Complainant’s business was known and identified by its name. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the Complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. 9, 2000) (finding that “[n]either the addition of an ordinary descriptive word . The Complainant asserts that, for the reasons stated below, it has made a prima facie case that the Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain and that the burden now shifts to the Respondent. The Respondent did not deny any of the claims made by the Complainant, and in particular the Respondent did not deny that it was aware of the Complainant and its business when it registered the Domain. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”). COM, given extensive use of that mark to identify the complainant as the source of broadcast services over the Internet, and evidence there is wide recognition with the BROADCASTAMERICA. mark, it also had common law rights in the BIBBERO mark because it had developed brand name recognition with the word “bibbero”).
With 3 new personality tests on the market, things are heating up in the European dating industry.
It looks like detailed personality tests in the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe will be the big thing offered this year.
On December 12, 2005, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Houston Putnam Lowry, Chartered Arbitrator, as Panelist. The Respondent clearly uses the Domain and the Complainant’s trade marks to attract and profit from internet users seeking the Complainant – see the submissions in relation to bad faith below. Indeed it is difficult to conceive that the Respondent would engage in a service such as this for a non commercial purpose.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent."Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. Such use of the Domain could not be said to be “bona fide”. See also the Complainants’ submissions below in relation to 4b (iv) of the Policy. 24, 2002) (finding that because the subject domain name incorporates the VIAGRA mark in its entirety, and deviates only by the addition of the word “bomb,” the domain name is rendered confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark); Westfield Corp. Hobbs, D2000-0227 (WIPO May 18, 2000) (finding the The Panel finds Respondent has appropriated Complainant’s mark to create competition, which is neither a bona fide offering of a good or service pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶4(c)(iii).
Indeed the name “Sex Dating Direct” appears prominently on the top of the home page as well as in the meta title and website text, thereby adding to likely confusion on the part of visitors reaching the site.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.
The test is designed to bring together compatible members and to build strong and lasting relationships.The popular UK dating site, Dating Direct, has recently launch a service called Dating Direct Affinity.It is a separate dating site but it is easily accessed through the Dating Direct membership area.The Domain entirely incorporates Complainant’s mark with the addition of either the descriptive word “sex”. Indeed it would not have been credible if the Respondent, a UK based operator of a dating website, had denied knowledge of the Complainant given that the Complainant is a major player – if not the market leader -(ii.) 4b(iv): By using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s web site or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s web site or location. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. Complainant has asserted that it has spent almost £10 million on marketing, advertised in national magazines, newspapers, specialty magazines, on television, national and local radio, posters, leaflets in health clubs, and on billboards, and spent considerable money to establish high priority on search engines. COM mark among Internet users as to the source of broadcast services); Bibbero Sys., Inc.