1. The Events
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 Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint ended up being filed utilizing 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 towards the Center its verification reaction confirming that the Respondent is detailed once the registrant and supplying the contact information. As a result up to a notification by the middle that the Complaint ended up being administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment into the grievance on March 13, 2018. The middle received communications that are several the Respondent on March 7, 2018, March 13, 2018 and March 15, 2018.
The Center verified that the issue alongside the amended problem pleased the formal needs of this Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the guidelines for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), as well as the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain title Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules” that is“Supplemental).
Prior to the guidelines, paragraphs 2 and 4, the middle formally notified the Respondent associated with the Complaint, additionally the proceedings commenced on March 16, 2018. Prior to the principles, paragraph 5, the deadline for reaction had been April 5, 2018. The reaction had been filed aided by the focus on 5, 2018 april. The Respondent filed a supplement to its reaction 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 once the panelist that is sole this matter on April 27, 2018. The Panel discovers it was precisely constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of recognition and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as needed because of the middle to make certain conformity aided by the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background. The Complainant has been around business of providing online social network, dating and match-making services since 2012 and runs a favorite relationship solution under its TINDER trademarks.
The Complainant partcipates in significant marketing tasks among these solutions 12 months on year. The Complainant has and runs the internet sites “www. Gotinder.com” and “www. Tinder.com” to facilitate its solutions. Regarding the “Tinder” branded internet site users may produce individual records, search and view user pages, subscribe to community forums, and read helpful and informative articles in the official “Tinder” weblog.
The Complainant reaches consumers global via its popular “Tinder” dating and networking that is social applications for Android and iOS mobile platforms. The Android variation has now reached over 100 million installs since inception in July 2013 and over 10 billion matches that are dating 2012.
The Complainant holds a number of subscribed trademarks for both figurative and word markings in respect associated with the TINDER mark including, as an example, usa registered trademark no. 4479131 when it comes to term mark TINDER, registered on February 4, 2014 in international course 9 (mobile applications) and United States registered trademark no. 4976225 for the term mark TINDER, registered on June 14, 2016 in international course 45 ( Internet-based social network, introduction and online dating services).
The disputed domain title is made on March 2, 2016. The Respondent describes it is a startup company running a business that is dating. The web site from the disputed website name features the phrase “Tender” in prominent red letters, underneath that is stated in smaller typeface “Free online dating sites for tender, type and loving singles” together by having a drop down menu for the consumer to choose their gender and a “Join now” key.
In line with the screenshots made by the Respondent from the Bing AdWords account, it seems to own utilized the text that is following its ads (although the Panel records that the most notable type of the very first ad might have been obscured):
5. Events’ Contentions. The Complainant contends that the disputed website name is identical or confusingly much like a trademark by which it has liberties;
A. Complainant
That the Respondent doesn’t have liberties or genuine passions into the disputed domain title; and therefore the disputed website name had been registered and it is getting used in bad faith.
The Complainant states that the disputed domain title is practically exactly the same as its TINDER mark however for a small misspelling and had been registered under circumstances constituting typo-squatting. The Complainant adds that while panels generally speaking don’t look at the domain that is top-level assessing confusing similarity, the Respondent’s utilization of the “. Singles” top-level https://besthookupwebsites.net/latinamericancupid-review/ domain shows that the disputed domain title is supposed to connect with the Complainant’s solutions and strengthens the sensed link with the Complainant.
The Complainant records that the Respondent isn’t connected to or endorsed by the Complainant and it has never ever been certified or authorized to utilize any one of its subscribed markings, nor any confusingly comparable designation, included in a website name. The Complainant submits that the Respondent cannot demonstrate some of the circumstances put down in paragraph 4(c) associated with the Policy nor any other proven fact that may establish legal rights or the best desire for the domain name that is disputed. The Complainant contends that the Respondent have not utilized the domain that is disputed in reference to a genuine offering of products or solutions since it is willfully exploiting the Complainant’s appeal and trading on its goodwill, noting that online users are lured to a questionable internet site where users are met with numerous recommendations to dating and matchmaking solutions which are made to confusingly claim 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 so understood if the disputed website name had been registered. The Complainant adds that the Respondent are not able to demonstrate a legitimate noncommercial or reasonable utilization of the domain that is disputed and that in misappropriating the Complainant’s marks the Respondent is leveraging the Complainant’s goodwill and appeal for the own advantage and simultaneously diminishing the worthiness for the Complainant, its markings and online dating services.
The Complainant states so it is using its TINDER mark since as soon as August 2, 2012 and that its formal domain ended up being registered on June 22, 2012, a long time before the disputed domain title ended up being registered. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent promises to misappropriate the TINDER mark to deceive customers and draw an incorrect relationship, considering that the web site linked to the disputed domain title prominently features the “Tender” designation along side adverts 100% free internet dating. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent deliberately tries to attract internet surfers via confusion produced with all the Complainant’s TINDER mark regarding the source, sponsorship, affiliation or recommendation of this disputed domain title whereby such users will think they have been working with the Complainant or that the disputed domain title is affiliated to or endorsed by the Complainant. The Complainant adds that such actions happen made knowingly and deceitfully because of the Respondent.
The Complainant asserts that users trying to find “tender” and dating would become more prone to do this according to understanding of the Complainant’s TINDER trademark, contending it is 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 wouldn’t normally do so if it failed to make far more in exchange. The Complainant additionally asks the Panel to dismiss the Respondent’s claim regarding its use and registration 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 can 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 domain title comprising a word that is dictionary utilize the web web site for content strongly related this is of the term, the Respondent provides no proof that “tender” means dating, indicates dating, if not calls in your thoughts dating but alternatively defines a feature through which some people on internet dating sites may recognize by themselves. The Complainant records that the Respondent will not provide a description as to why it just registered a domain title that is a phonetic comparable and typical misspelling for the Complainant’s trademark as opposed to register other characteristics of an individual, incorporating that “tender” is certainly not generic for a dating internet site and that users will be almost certainly going to seek out “date”, “dating” or similar terms instead of “tender”.
