1. The Parties
The Complainant is Match Group, LLC of Dallas, Texas, united states (“United States”), represented by Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, united states of america.
The Respondent is Merl Matrix GmbH of Baar, Zug, Switzerland, internally represented.
2. The Website Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint ended up being filed using the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 7, 2018. A request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name on March 7, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar. On March 8, 2018, the Registrar sent by e-mail to your Center its verification reaction confirming that the Respondent is detailed since the registrant and supplying the contact information. As a result up to a notification by the Center that the Complaint had been administratively lacking, the Complainant filed an amendment to your grievance on March 13, 2018. The middle received a few communications from the Respondent on March 7, 2018, March 13, 2018 and March 15, 2018.
The Center verified that the grievance together with the amended problem pleased the formal demands of this Uniform Domain title Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the guidelines for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and also the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules” that is“Supplemental).
Relative to the guidelines, paragraphs 2 and 4, the middle formally notified the Respondent for the Complaint, together with procedures commenced on March 16, 2018. Prior to the principles, paragraph 5, the date that is due reaction had been April 5, 2018. The reaction was filed utilizing the target April 5, 2018. The Respondent filed a supplement to its Response on April 5, 2018. The Complainant filed a filing that is supplemental April 13, 2018 plus the Respondent filed a supplemental filing on April 14, 2018.
The Center appointed Andrew D. S. Lothian due to the fact single panelist in this matter on April 27, 2018. The Panel discovers it was correctly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of recognition and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to make sure conformity because of the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background. The Complainant has been around the company of providing online networking that is social dating and match-making services since 2012 and runs a favorite relationship solution under its TINDER trademarks.
The Complainant engages in significant advertising tasks among these solutions on 12 months year. The Complainant has and runs those sites “www. Gotinder.com” and “www. Tinder.com” to facilitate its solutions. Regarding the “Tinder” branded site users may produce individual records, search and view user pages, play a role in community forums, and read helpful and informative articles from the official “Tinder” web log.
The Complainant reaches consumers global via its popular “Tinder” dating and social media mobile applications for Android and iOS mobile platforms. The Android variation has already reached over 100 million installs since inception in July 2013 and over 10 billion matches that are dating 2012.
The Complainant holds a variety of authorized trademarks both for figurative and term markings in respect regarding the TINDER mark including, for instance, usa registered trademark no. 4479131 when it comes to term mark TINDER, registered on February 4, 2014 in worldwide class 9 (mobile computer programs) and usa registered trademark no. 4976225 for the word mark TINDER, registered on June 14, 2016 in worldwide course 45 ( Internet-based social network, introduction and online dating services).
The domain that is disputed is made on March 2, 2016. The Respondent describes it is a startup company running a dating company. The web site linked to the disputed domain title features the phrase “Tender” in prominent red letters, underneath that will be stated in smaller typeface “Free internet dating for tender, sort and loving singles” together by having a fall down menu for an individual to pick their sex and a “Join now” key.
On the basis of the screenshots made by the Respondent from the Bing AdWords account, it seems to possess utilized the text that is following its advertisements (even though the Panel records that the most effective type of the initial ad might have been obscured):
5. Events’ Contentions. The Complainant contends that the disputed website name is identical or confusingly much like a trademark in which it has liberties;
That the Respondent does not have any legal rights or genuine passions within the disputed domain title; and that the disputed website name ended up being registered and it is getting used in bad faith.
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is virtually exactly the same as its TINDER mark however for a small misspelling and had been registered under circumstances typo-squatting that is constituting. The Complainant adds that while panels generally usually do not look at the top-level domain whenever assessing confusing similarity, the Respondent’s utilization of the “. Singles” top-level domain demonstrates that the disputed website name is intended to relate with the Complainant’s solutions and strengthens the recognized link with the Complainant.
The Complainant records that the Respondent is certainly not associated with or endorsed because of the Complainant and it has never ever been licensed or authorized to utilize some of its subscribed marks, nor any designation that is confusingly similar as an element of a website name. The Complainant submits that the Respondent cannot demonstrate any of the circumstances put down in paragraph 4(c) regarding the Policy nor some other proven fact that may establish legal rights or the best fascination with the domain name that is disputed. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not yet utilized the disputed domain title in reference to a genuine offering of products or services since it is willfully exploiting the Complainant’s appeal and trading on its goodwill, noting that online users are lured to a dubious site where users are met with numerous references to dating and matchmaking solutions that are built to confusingly declare that the Respondent may be the Complainant or endorsed or affiliated therewith. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has not yet become popularly known as “tender”, nor had been it therefore understood once the disputed website name ended up being registered. The Complainant adds that the Respondent are not able to demonstrate a legitimate noncommercial or reasonable utilization of the disputed domain name and therefore in misappropriating the Complainant’s marks the Respondent is leveraging the Complainant’s goodwill and appeal because of its very very own advantage and simultaneously diminishing the worth for the Complainant, its markings and online dating services.
The Complainant states it happens to be which consists of TINDER mark since as early as August 2, 2012 and therefore its formal domain ended up being registered on June 22, 2012, a long time before the disputed website name had been registered. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent intends to misappropriate the TINDER mark to deceive customers and draw a poor association, considering that the internet site from the disputed website name prominently features the “Tender” designation along side ads 100% free online dating sites. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent deliberately tries to attract internet surfers via confusion produced aided by the Complainant’s TINDER mark regarding the supply, sponsorship, affiliation or recommendation regarding the disputed domain name whereby such users will think these are typically coping with the Complainant or that the disputed domain title is affiliated to or endorsed because of the Complainant. The Complainant adds that such actions are made knowingly and deceitfully by the Respondent.
The Complainant asserts that users looking for “tender” and dating would be much more prone to do this predicated on knowing of the Complainant’s TINDER trademark, contending that it is way more plausible that the Respondent find the disputed domain name since it is confusingly comparable thereto. The Complainant submits so it owns based on a dictionary word sometimes used in dating profiles that it strains credulity that the Respondent would spend the equivalent of more than USD 35,000 promoting an allegedly generic site which is one of many. The Complainant adds that the Respondent will never achieve this if it failed to make a lot more in exchange. The Complainant additionally asks the Panel to overlook the Respondent’s claim regarding its enrollment and employ of other names of domain as this really is unsupported by proof.
The Complainant submits that the known undeniable fact that “tender” may have a dictionary meaning will not put it in just a safe-harbor which will be resistant through the Policy, noting that the Respondent will not argue that the Complainant’s trademark is generic. The Complainant asserts that while an event may legitimately register a website name composed of a dictionary term and make use of the web site for content strongly related the meaning of this term, the Respondent provides no proof that “tender” means dating, indicates dating, and sometimes even calls in your thoughts dating but instead defines a feature through which some people on internet dating sites may determine by themselves. The Complainant records that the Respondent will not provide a conclusion as to why it just registered a domain title which will be a phonetic comparable and typical misspelling associated with the Complainant’s trademark as opposed to register other characteristics of people, incorporating that “tender” is certainly not generic for a dating site and that users will be very likely to seek out “date”, “dating” or similar terms instead of “tender”.