Dating datingdirect direct ashley dating simpson site
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.
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.
27, 2002) (finding the respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name to operate a pay-per-click search engine, in competition with the complainant, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); Computerized Sec.
Dating Direct operates on a basic code of conduct, which provides a rundown of rules that you should and should do (ie be yourself and don’t be rude).
The service also products safety advice and even tells you how to spot a scammer.
Since its launch in 1999, Dating Direct has been the choice for Britons searching for love online.
With over five million active members it remains a popular option to this day.
10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶4(c)(ii) does not apply); Gallup, Inc. 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). 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. If you book an event, it is automatically added to your personal calendar.I was surprised to see how popular each event was, and it wasn’t rare to see events marked as sold out.