Datingdirect com search


03-May-2017 16:38

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.

datingdirect com search-24

updating formula for the sample covariance and correlation

datingdirect com search-84

mario dating amber rose sister

It is a separate dating site but it is easily accessed through the Dating Direct membership area.

registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). 23, 2002) (where complainant has asserted that respondent has no rights or legitimate interests it was incumbent on respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”). 11, 2000) (finding that “[I]t would be unconscionable to find a bona fide offering of services in a respondent’s operation of web-site using a domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and for the same business”). The Respondent’s website does offer online dating services.(iii.) Whether Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

On November 16, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 6, 2005 by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to [email protected] e-mail. (i.) Whether, before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name is in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. It is clear that the Respondent was out for commercial gain.

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.

The word does not disguise the fact that the dominant feature of the Domain is the DATING DIRECT mark, and is therefore confusingly similar to that mark. The use of the preceding word “sex” before the Complainant’s trade mark is intended by the Respondent to create a likelihood of confusion in the minds of the public as to an association between the Respondent and the Complainant. My brother also met his wife on match.com, another friend his fiancé, and two more friends their partners. Because I’ve had more relationships with people from this site than any other dating site in the UK.This test was taken from their US sister dating site called Chemistry (see Story).