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 Website Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint had been filed with all the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 7, 2018. On March 7, 2018, the middle sent by e-mail towards the Registrar a ask for registrar verification associated with the disputed domain name. On March 8, 2018, the Registrar sent by e-mail to your Center its verification reaction confirming that the Respondent is detailed once the registrant and supplying the contact information. As a result to a notification by the Center that the Complaint had been administratively lacking, the Complainant filed an amendment towards the problem 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 alongside the amended issue pleased the formal demands for the Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the principles for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), as well as the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules” that is“Supplemental).
Prior to the guidelines, paragraphs 2 and 4, the middle formally notified the Respondent associated with Complaint, in addition to procedures commenced on March 16, 2018. Prior to the guidelines, paragraph 5, the due date for reaction was April 5, 2018. The reaction ended up being filed utilizing the Center on 5, 2018 april. The Respondent filed a health supplement to its reaction on 5, 2018 april. The Complainant filed a filing that is supplemental April 13, 2018 additionally 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 precisely constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of recognition and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as needed by the middle to make certain conformity because of the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background. The Complainant has been doing the business enterprise 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 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 users that are website produce personal records, search and view user pages, play a role in message boards, and read helpful and informative articles from the official “Tinder” web log.
The Complainant reaches consumers worldwide via its popular “Tinder” dating and networking that is social applications for Android and iOS mobile platforms. The Android os variation 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 authorized trademarks for both figurative and term markings in respect of this 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 applications) and usa registered trademark no. 4976225 for the term 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 was made on March 2, 2016. The Respondent describes it is a startup company running a dating company. The internet site linked to the disputed website name features the term “Tender” in prominent red letters, underneath that will be stated in smaller typeface “Free internet dating for tender, type and loving singles” together with a fall down menu for the consumer to pick their gender and a “Join now” key.
On the basis of the screenshots made by the Respondent from the Bing AdWords account, it seems to own used the text that is following its ads (even though the Panel notes that the utmost 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 just like a trademark by which it has legal rights;
That the Respondent doesn’t have legal rights or genuine passions within the domain that is disputed; and that the disputed website name ended up being registered and it is getting used in bad faith.
The Complainant states that the disputed website name is practically exactly the same as its TINDER mark but also for a small misspelling and had been registered under circumstances typo-squatting that is constituting. The Complainant adds that while panels generally don’t 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 website name is supposed to connect with the Complainant’s solutions and strengthens the sensed link with the Complainant.
The Complainant notes that the Respondent is certainly not associated with or endorsed by the Complainant and contains never ever been certified or authorized to utilize some of its subscribed markings, nor any designation that is confusingly similar included in a website name. The Complainant submits that the Respondent cannot demonstrate some of the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of this Policy nor any kind of proven fact that may establish liberties or a legitimate desire for the disputed domain title. 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 internet surfers are lured to a questionable web site where users are met with numerous sources to dating and matchmaking solutions which are made to confusingly claim 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 ended up being it therefore understood if the domain that is disputed had been registered. The Complainant adds that the Respondent are not able to demonstrate a legitimate noncommercial or fair utilization of the disputed website name and that in misappropriating the Complainant’s marks the Respondent is leveraging the Complainant’s goodwill and appeal because of its very very very own advantage and simultaneously diminishing the worthiness associated with Complainant, its markings 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 official domain had been registered on June 22, 2012, a long time before the domain that is disputed had been registered. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent promises to misappropriate the TINDER mark to deceive customers and draw a poor relationship, considering that the web site from 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 individuals via confusion produced aided by the Complainant’s TINDER mark regarding the supply, sponsorship, affiliation or recommendation associated with domain that is disputed 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 have already been made knowingly and deceitfully by the Respondent.
The Complainant asserts that users looking for “tender” and dabble dating would become more prone to achieve this predicated on knowing 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 so it strains credulity that the Respondent would spend the same of greater than USD 35,000 advertising an presumably generic website that is one of the many so it has according to a dictionary term often found in dating pages. The Complainant adds that the Respondent wouldn’t normally do this if it would not make far more in exchange. The Complainant additionally asks the Panel to dismiss the Respondent’s claim regarding its registration and make use of of other names of domain as this really is unsupported by proof.
The Complainant submits that the known proven fact that “tender” may have a dictionary meaning will not put it inside a safe-harbor which will be resistant through the Policy, noting that the Respondent does not argue that the Complainant’s trademark is generic. The Complainant asserts that while an event may legitimately register a domain title composed of a word that is dictionary utilize the web web site for content highly relevant to this is of this term, the Respondent provides no proof that “tender” means dating, implies dating, and sometimes even calls in your thoughts dating but alternatively defines a characteristic in which some people on internet dating sites may determine by themselves. The Complainant records that the Respondent doesn’t provide a conclusion as to the reasons it just registered a domain title which will be a phonetic comparable and typical misspelling associated with Complainant’s trademark as opposed to register other attributes of an individual, incorporating that “tender” is not generic for the dating website and that users will be very likely to seek out “date”, “dating” or similar terms instead of “tender”.