Datingdirect com ltd
A rating is given between 0 and 100 - the higher the rating, the more credit-worthy the company and the more likely the company will be able to pay back the loan. " It is calculated based on the credit rating, financial history, age of company and many other variables.
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.
Complainant asserts to have sent a cease and desist letter to Respondent on September 14, 2004.
On the same day, Complainant sent a communication of the same nature to the email address listed under the administrative contact information on the Whois for the domain name.
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.Moreover, Respondent states that Respondent would be very much interested in knowing of any cases Complainant has lost.Respondent also states that since the words “Internet,” “dating,” and “direct” are generic, they must be made available to be used in various combinations, or else there could only be one dating site, which would only be 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.
Respondent asserts that there is no proof of the above, as Respondent is not proceeding in that manner.