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 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 to your Registrar a request 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 detailed whilst the registrant and supplying the contact information. As a result up to a notification because of the Center that the Complaint ended up being administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment towards the 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 together with the amended grievance pleased the formal needs for the Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the guidelines for Uniform Domain title Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), additionally the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain title Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules” that is“Supplemental).
Prior to the principles, paragraphs 2 and 4, the middle formally notified the Respondent regarding the Complaint, together with proceedings commenced on March 16, 2018. Relative to the principles, paragraph 5, the deadline for reaction had been April 5, 2018. The reaction had been filed using the focus on 5, 2018 april. The Respondent filed a health supplement to its reaction on April 5, 2018. The Complainant filed a supplemental filing on April 13, 2018 and also the Respondent filed a supplemental filing on April 14, 2018.
The Center appointed Andrew D. S. Lothian while the 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 because of the Center to make sure compliance aided by the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background. The Complainant has been around the business enterprise of providing online social media, dating and match-making services since 2012 and runs a favorite relationship solution under its TINDER trademarks.
The Complainant partcipates in significant advertising tasks of the solutions 12 months on year. The Complainant has and runs those sites “www. Gotinder.com” and “www. Tinder.com” to facilitate its solutions. On the “Tinder” branded internet site users may produce individual reports, 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 os variation has already 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 both for figurative and term markings in respect for 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 course 9 (mobile computer programs) and usa registered trademark no. 4976225 for the term mark TINDER, registered on June 14, 2016 in worldwide course 45 ( Internet-based social media, introduction and online dating services).
The disputed domain title is made on March 2, 2016. The Respondent describes it is a startup company operating a business that is dating. The internet site from the disputed domain title features the term “Tender” in prominent red letters, underneath which will be stated in smaller typeface “Free online dating sites for tender, type and loving singles” together with a fall down menu for the consumer to choose their sex and a “Join now” key.
In line with the screenshots generated by the Respondent from the Bing AdWords account, it seems to possess utilized the text that is following its ads (even though the Panel records that the most truly effective type of the initial advertisement was obscured):
5. Events’ Contentions. The Complainant contends that the disputed website name is identical or confusingly just like a trademark for which it has legal rights;
That the Respondent does not have any legal rights or genuine interests when you look at the domain that is disputed; and therefore the disputed domain title had been registered and 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 ended up being registered under circumstances constituting typo-squatting. The Complainant adds that while panels generally speaking never think about 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 relate with the Complainant’s services and strengthens the observed link with the Complainant.
The Complainant records that the Respondent isn’t associated with or endorsed by the Complainant and contains never been certified or authorized to utilize some of its subscribed marks, nor any confusingly comparable designation, included in a domain name. The Complainant submits that the Respondent cannot demonstrate some taimi of the circumstances put down in paragraph 4(c) regarding the 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 hasn’t used the disputed domain title in experience of 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 site where users are confronted by numerous recommendations to dating and matchmaking solutions that are made to confusingly claim that the Respondent could be the Complainant or endorsed or affiliated therewith. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent hasn’t become popularly known as “tender”, nor ended up being it therefore understood if the domain that is disputed ended up being 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 therefore in misappropriating the Complainant’s marks the Respondent is leveraging the Complainant’s goodwill and popularity for the own advantage and simultaneously diminishing the worthiness of this 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 had been registered on June 22, 2012, a long time before the disputed domain title 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 site linked to the disputed website name prominently features the “Tender” designation along side adverts 100% free internet dating. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent deliberately tries to attract online users via confusion created using the Complainant’s TINDER mark regarding the source, sponsorship, affiliation or recommendation for the domain that is disputed whereby such users will believe they have been coping with the Complainant or that the disputed website name is affiliated to or endorsed because of the Complainant. The Complainant adds that such actions are made knowingly and deceitfully because of the Respondent.
The Complainant asserts that users looking for “tender” and dating would become more prone to achieve this predicated on knowing 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 of greater than USD 35,000 marketing an presumably generic website that is one of several so it has predicated on a dictionary term often found in dating profiles. The Complainant adds that the Respondent wouldn’t normally achieve this if it would not make much 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 since that is unsupported by proof.
The Complainant submits that the known proven fact that “tender” may have a dictionary meaning doesn’t 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 a celebration may legitimately register a website name composed of a dictionary term and make use of 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 describes an feature through which a lot of people on internet dating sites may determine by themselves. The Complainant notes 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 of this Complainant’s trademark as opposed to register other characteristics of an individual, adding that “tender” isn’t generic for the dating internet site and that users is very likely to seek out “date”, “dating” or similar terms instead of “tender”.