1. The Events
The Complainant is Match Group, LLC of Dallas, Texas, united states (“United States”), represented by Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, united dating.com 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 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 obtain registrar verification regarding the the disputed website name. On March 8, 2018, the Registrar sent by e-mail towards the Center its verification reaction confirming that the Respondent is listed once the registrant and supplying the contact information. In reaction up to a notification because of the Center that the Complaint ended up being administratively lacking, the Complainant filed an amendment towards the 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 problem alongside the amended problem pleased the formal needs associated with the Uniform Domain title Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the principles for Uniform Domain title Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), as well as the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
According to the principles, paragraphs 2 and 4, the guts formally notified the Respondent associated with Complaint, therefore the procedures commenced on March 16, 2018. According to the principles, paragraph 5, the due date 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 April 5, 2018. The Complainant filed a filing that is supplemental April 13, 2018 while the Respondent filed a supplemental filing on April 14, 2018.
The Center appointed Andrew D. S. Lothian given that 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 guts to make sure conformity because of the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background. The Complainant has been doing business 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 partcipates in substantial advertising tasks of those solutions on 12 months year. The Complainant has and runs the internet 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 member pages, donate to message boards, and read helpful and informative articles in 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 os 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 both for figurative and term markings in respect associated with 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 usa registered trademark no. 4976225 for the term mark TINDER, registered on June 14, 2016 in worldwide class 45 ( Internet-based social network, introduction and online dating services).
The disputed domain title was 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 domain title features the term “Tender” in prominent red letters, underneath which can be stated in smaller typeface “Free online dating sites for tender, sort and loving singles” together by having a fall down menu for the consumer to pick their sex 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 after text on its adverts (even though the Panel records that the very best type of the initial ad might have been obscured):
5. Parties’ Contentions. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain title is identical or confusingly much like a trademark by which it has liberties;
That the Respondent doesn’t have legal rights or genuine passions within the domain that is disputed; and therefore 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 however for a small misspelling and had been registered under circumstances constituting typo-squatting. The Complainant adds that while panels generally speaking try not to think about the top-level domain when evaluating confusing similarity, the Respondent’s utilization of the “. Singles” top-level domain shows that the disputed domain title is supposed to connect with the Complainant’s solutions and strengthens the recognized link with the Complainant.
The Complainant records that the Respondent just isn’t connected to or endorsed because of the Complainant and has now never ever been licensed or approved to utilize some of its authorized markings, nor any designation that is confusingly similar as an element of a website name. The Complainant submits that the Respondent cannot demonstrate some of the circumstances lay out in paragraph 4(c) for the Policy nor any kind of proven fact that may establish legal rights or the best desire for the domain name that is disputed. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not yet 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 up to a questionable internet site where users are confronted by numerous recommendations to dating and matchmaking solutions that are made to confusingly claim that the Respondent may be the Complainant or endorsed or affiliated therewith. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent have not become popularly known as “tender”, nor ended up being it therefore 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 disputed website name and that in misappropriating the Complainant’s marks the Respondent is leveraging the Complainant’s goodwill and popularity for the very own advantage and simultaneously diminishing the worth for the 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 formal domain ended up being registered on June 22, 2012, a long time before the domain that is disputed ended up being registered. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent promises to misappropriate the TINDER mark to deceive customers and draw an poor relationship, considering that the web site from the disputed domain title prominently features the “Tender” designation along side ads 100% free dating that is online. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent deliberately tries to attract online users via confusion created using the Complainant’s TINDER mark regarding the supply, sponsorship, affiliation or recommendation associated with the 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 because of the Complainant. The Complainant adds that such actions happen made knowingly and deceitfully by the Respondent.
The Complainant asserts that users looking for “tender” and dating would be much more prone to achieve this according to understanding of the Complainant’s TINDER trademark, contending it is even more plausible that the Respondent find the disputed domain name since it is confusingly comparable thereto. The Complainant submits so it strains credulity that the Respondent would spend very same in excess of USD 35,000 marketing an presumably generic website which will be one of the many so it has centered on a dictionary term often utilized in dating pages. The Complainant adds that the Respondent will never do this if it would not make much more in exchange. The Complainant additionally asks the Panel to dismiss the Respondent’s claim regarding its enrollment and make use of of other names of domain as that is unsupported by proof.
The Complainant submits that the undeniable fact that “tender” may have a dictionary meaning will not stick it within 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 domain title composed of a dictionary term and utilize the web site for content strongly related this is of this term, the Respondent provides no evidence that “tender” means dating, indicates dating, and sometimes even calls in your thoughts dating but alternatively defines a feature by which a lot of people on online dating sites may determine by themselves. The Complainant records that the Respondent doesn’t offer a conclusion as to why it just registered a domain title which will be a phonetic comparable and typical misspelling regarding the Complainant’s trademark as opposed to register other attributes of an individual, adding 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”.