Respondent highlights that Complainant contends they possesses an exclusive best to use the definition of Fling and you may Affair because of its merchandise and you can qualities, although not, also a valid membership to your marks cannot preclude all need – simply you to definitely usage protected by the goods and attributes definitions regarding new ework out-of signature laws.

Respondent highlights that the Affair mark is restricted to online website functions offering into-range matchmaking nightclubs plus the Fling draw is for “delivering websites presenting advice and you may stuff throughout the areas regarding personal relationship and relationship

” Respondent contends that these deliberately vague meanings was in fact demonstrably meant to misguide and you can disguise the real character out-of Complainant’s characteristics within the membership techniques, since the true characteristics regarding Complainant’s services makes such ple, Complainant’s own internet site means this service membership as such: “Affair is the Top Place to Link! ” That it care about-malfunction out of Complainant’s qualities is the really concept of the phrase “fling” a beneficial “deliberately brief-label sexual relationships between a couple.”

Respondent argues that if generic brands would be one to seller’s personal assets, competitors might have problem telling people who these people were competition, while they would be not able, without involved and possibly confusing paraphrase supply the name off this product they were promoting.

Respondent says which he ended up being utilising the Domain name to own practical relative commercial objectives before any observe from Complainant’s dispute, and this Complainant and you will Respondent was actually doing work amicably to one another when you look at the an advertising relationship prior to the conflict, and it also was just shortly after a negotiation on the advertising rates bankrupt off you to Complainant proceeded having a conflict.

Respondent asserts your industrial dating between Complainant and you will Respondent features lived while the no less than 2010, well before initiation of your own Problem and therefore so it demonstrates play with of your own Domain or a name equal to the fresh new Domain Term about the a bona-fide giving of goods or functions while the at the very least 2010, which Respondent (given that one, organization, and other business) has been also known because of the Website name and that is making a valid reasonable use term towards goods or features otherwise a percentage thereof, which it’s entered.

Respondent submits that Complainant’s allegations of famous marks or odds of misunderstandings is instead of quality, for as long as Respondent’s play with is but one that enables customers to examine merchandise or attributes. Respondent claims one to such as for example use is the top function of his site, which is evident about simple code of web site and you to definitely provided Respondent cannot pass from their features as the those of Complainant, brand new statute will bring security for for example comparative fool around with, and even in the event that an implicated have fun with does not strictly meet the requirements because the comparative ads or campaign from inside the legal defense, it could be exempt while the a non-trademark explore, hence cannot dilute.

Respondent suggests that there isn’t any sensible probability you to Respondent’s product reviews, tips, and you may reviews might be mistaken by the people become the services provided by Complainant from the domain , in general try an assessment webpages one to discusses features away from third-cluster sites without a subscription system otherwise toward-website complimentary; and almost every other was a genuine web site delivering flings subsequent to a registration program.

Cplainant’s supplementary articles

Complainant believes you to Respondent used to be a separate marketer to possess Complainant’s “fling” web site, not claims that Respondent is not paid off people negotiated speed to own their properties, with no dealings has actually actually ever took place between sexiest girl Chicago, IL Respondent and you will Complainant regarding people ads rates or otherwiseplainant rejects Respondent’s assertions one transactions had taken place, that people negotiations got broken down, hence Complainant started the moment argument this is why.