Datingdirect com ltd

Complainant states that ever since it launched its website, at the From several documents attached to the Complaint that evidence the expenditures Complainant has incurred, as well as its ambitious advertisement campaigns, Complainant seeks to prove its success and popularity.For instance, enclosed with the Complaint are extracts from Complainant’s annual accounts from 2000 through 2002, letters from Complainant’s auditor regarding the 2003 financial year, press cuttings, etc.In this regard, Respondent states that Respondent’s website is not listed by Google, thus, it is not stealing any clients from Complainant.In connection with this point, Respondent notes the existence of the website Dating.com, and under the same line of reasoning used for Respondent’s case, concludes that Complainant is stealing clientele from Dating.com, as the latter web page was registered a year before Complainant registered the Regarding this point, Respondent affirms that a possible reason for why abstains from accusing Complainant of infringement – as has been Respondent’s case before Complainant’s, for the same motives – is because recognizes that there is no infringement, due to the fact that operates in the United States and Complainant operates in the United Kingdom.

Report information is updated daily, however, if the latest credit limit is dated a while ago, this means that the credit limit has not changed since then. ‘In Judgement’ means the CCJ is still an active judgement and has not been paid.In any case, Complainant states that it would not have been credible if Respondent had denied knowledge of Complainant, given its choice of the domain name and that Complainant is a major player in international online dating. Respondent asserts that it never received a cease and desist letter, and if this would have been the case, Respondent would have answered it.However, since Respondent is an American citizen, Respondent claims that Respondent will not answer any communication from any foreign company.Complainant states that it is sceptical of Respondent’s claim that Respondent did not receive the cease and desist letters sent by Complainant, as Complainant has proof of delivery to the Whois address and Respondent has not said that this address was incorrect.Complainant states that it cannot seriously consider Respondent’s extraordinary suggestion that Respondent will not answer any communication sent by any foreign company.

Leave a Reply