1. The Events
The Complainant is Match Group, LLC of Dallas, Texas, united states (“United States”), represented by Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, usa.
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 with all 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 transmitted by e-mail to your Center its verification reaction confirming that the Respondent is detailed while the registrant and supplying the contact information. In reaction up to a notification because of the middle that the Complaint had been administratively lacking, the Complainant filed an amendment to your problem 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 grievance with the amended grievance satisfied 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”), additionally the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain title Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
Relative to the principles, paragraphs 2 and 4, the guts formally notified the Respondent for the Complaint, in addition to proceedings commenced on March 16, 2018. Prior to the guidelines, paragraph 5, the deadline for reaction had been April 5, 2018. The reaction ended up being filed using the focus on April 5, 2018. The Respondent filed a health supplement to its reaction on 5, 2018 april. 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 guts to make sure conformity because of the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background. The Complainant has been doing the company of providing online social media, dating and match-making services since 2012 and operates a favorite relationship solution under its TINDER trademarks.
The Complainant partcipates in significant advertising tasks of those services 12 months on year. The Complainant has and runs those sites “www. Gotinder.com” and “www. Tinder.com” to facilitate its solutions. Regarding the “Tinder” branded web site users may produce individual reports, search and view user pages, donate to community forums, and read helpful and informative articles from 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 os version has now reached over 100 million installs since inception in July 2013 and over 10 billion dating matches since 2012.
The Complainant holds a number of subscribed trademarks both for figurative and term markings in respect regarding the TINDER mark including, as an example, usa registered trademark no. 4479131 for the term mark TINDER, registered on February 4, 2014 in worldwide course 9 (mobile computer programs) and United States registered trademark no. 4976225 when it comes to term mark TINDER, registered on June 14, 2016 in international course 45 ( Internet-based networking that is social 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 business that is dating. The web site linked to the disputed website name features the term “Tender” in prominent red letters, underneath that is stated in smaller typeface “Free internet dating for tender, sort and loving singles” together by having a fall down menu for the consumer to choose 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 after text on its adverts (even though the Panel notes that the most truly effective type of the initial advertisement might afrointroductions have been obscured):
5. Events’ Contentions. The Complainant contends that the disputed website name is identical or confusingly comparable to a trademark by which it has liberties;
That the Respondent does not have any liberties or genuine passions when you look at the domain that is disputed; and therefore the disputed domain title ended up being registered and it is used in bad faith.
The Complainant states that the disputed website name is practically 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 speaking try not to look at the domain that is top-level assessing confusing similarity, the Respondent’s utilization of the “. Singles” top-level domain shows that the disputed domain name is supposed to relate genuinely to the Complainant’s solutions and strengthens the recognized connection to the Complainant.
The Complainant records that the Respondent is certainly not associated with or endorsed because of the Complainant and contains never ever been certified or authorized to make use of some of its authorized markings, nor any designation that is confusingly similar included in a domain name. The Complainant submits that the Respondent cannot demonstrate some of the circumstances put down in paragraph 4(c) of this Policy nor some other undeniable fact that may establish liberties or the best fascination with the domain name that is disputed. The Complainant contends that the Respondent have not utilized the disputed website name in experience of a real offering of products or solutions since it is willfully exploiting the Complainant’s appeal and trading on its goodwill, noting that individuals are lured to a questionable web site where users are met with numerous sources to dating and matchmaking solutions that are built to confusingly declare that the Respondent could 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 known if the disputed website name ended up being registered. The Complainant adds that the Respondent cannot demonstrate a legitimate noncommercial or reasonable utilization of the domain that is disputed and therefore in misappropriating the Complainant’s marks the Respondent is leveraging the Complainant’s goodwill and appeal because of its own advantage and simultaneously diminishing the worth for the Complainant, its marks and online dating services.
The Complainant states so it happens to be which consists of TINDER mark since as soon as August 2, 2012 and therefore its formal domain had been registered on June 22, 2012, a long time before the disputed website name 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 website name prominently features the “Tender” designation along side ads 100% free internet dating. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent deliberately tries to attract online users via confusion produced aided by the Complainant’s TINDER mark regarding the supply, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of this domain that is disputed whereby such users will think they’ve been coping with the Complainant or that the disputed website name is affiliated to or endorsed by the Complainant. The Complainant adds that such actions happen made knowingly and deceitfully by the Respondent.
The Complainant asserts that users trying to find “tender” and dating would become more very likely to achieve this centered on understanding of the Complainant’s TINDER trademark, contending because it is confusingly similar thereto that it is much more plausible that the Respondent chose the disputed domain name. The Complainant submits 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 achieve this if it failed to make much more in return. The Complainant additionally asks the Panel to overlook the Respondent’s claim regarding its use and registration of other names of domain since that is unsupported by proof.
The Complainant submits that the proven fact that “tender” may have a dictionary meaning will not stick it in just a safe-harbor that is 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 comprising a dictionary term and utilize the web web site for content highly relevant to this is of the term, the Respondent provides no proof that “tender” means dating, implies dating, and on occasion even calls in your thoughts dating but alternatively defines a feature through which some people on internet dating sites may determine on their own. The Complainant records that the Respondent will not provide a reason as to why it just registered a domain title that is a phonetic comparable and typical misspelling associated with the Complainant’s trademark as opposed to register other characteristics of an individual, incorporating that “tender” is certainly not generic for the dating site and that users could be almost certainly going to seek out “date”, “dating” or similar terms instead of “tender”.