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 transmitted by e-mail towards the Center its verification reaction confirming that the Respondent is detailed while the registrant and providing the contact information. In reaction up to a notification because of the middle that the Complaint ended up being administratively lacking, the Complainant filed an amendment to your 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 problem alongside the amended grievance pleased the formal needs associated with Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the guidelines for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and also the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules” that is“Supplemental).
According to the guidelines, paragraphs 2 and 4, the guts formally notified the Respondent regarding the Complaint, together with procedures commenced on March 16, 2018. Prior to the principles, paragraph 5, the deadline for reaction ended up being April 5, 2018. The Response had been filed with all the focus on 5, 2018 april. The Respondent filed a supplement to its reaction on 5, 2018 april. 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 since the panelist that is sole this matter on April 27, 2018. The Panel discovers it was correctly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of recognition and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as needed because of the Center to make certain conformity because of the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background. The Complainant has been around 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 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 services. Regarding the “Tinder” branded users that are website produce individual reports, search and view member pages, donate 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 social network mobile 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 matches that are dating 2012.
A variety is held by the Complainant of subscribed trademarks both for figurative and term markings in respect of this TINDER mark including, as an example, usa registered trademark no. 4479131 when it comes to term mark TINDER, registered on February 4, 2014 in worldwide course 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 networking that is social 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 linked to the disputed domain title features the phrase “Tender” in prominent pink 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 an individual to pick their sex and a “Join now” key.
In line with the screenshots generated by the Respondent from its Bing AdWords account, it seems to possess utilized the after text on its adverts (even though the Panel records that the most truly effective type of the initial ad might have been obscured):
5. Parties’ Contentions. The Complainant contends that the disputed website name is identical or confusingly just like a trademark for which it owns liberties;
That the Respondent does not have any liberties or genuine passions into the domain that is disputed; and therefore the disputed domain name had been registered and it is used in bad faith.
The Complainant states that the disputed website name is practically the same as its TINDER mark but also for a small misspelling and was registered under circumstances constituting typo-squatting. The Complainant adds that while panels generally speaking try not to 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 genuinely to the Complainant’s solutions and strengthens the identified link with the Complainant.
The Complainant records that the Respondent just isn’t connected to or endorsed by the Complainant and has now never ever been certified or authorized to make use of any one of its authorized marks, 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) of this Policy nor some other proven fact that may establish liberties or the best fascination with the disputed website name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent have not utilized the disputed website name in reference to a real 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 dubious internet site where users are confronted by numerous recommendations to dating and matchmaking solutions that are built to confusingly declare 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 had been it therefore understood once 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 appeal for the very very very own benefit and simultaneously diminishing the worth regarding 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 that its formal domain ended up being registered on June 22, 2012, well 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 an incorrect relationship, considering the fact that the internet site from the disputed domain title prominently features the “Tender” designation along side ads 100% free online dating sites. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent deliberately tries to attract online users via confusion produced with all the Complainant’s TINDER mark regarding the supply, sponsorship, affiliation or recommendation for the domain that is disputed whereby such users will think they truly are 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 searching for “tender” and dating would become more very likely to do this predicated 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 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 several it owns centered on a dictionary term often utilized in dating pages. The Complainant adds that the Respondent will never achieve this if it would not make a lot more in exchange. The Complainant additionally asks the Panel to disregard the Respondent’s claim regarding its enrollment and make use of https://besthookupwebsites.net/phrendly-review/ of other names of domain as that is unsupported by proof.
The Complainant submits that the proven fact that “tender” may have a dictionary meaning will not put it within 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 website name composed of a word that is dictionary utilize the web web web site for content strongly related this is of the term, the Respondent provides no proof that “tender” means dating, indicates dating, and on occasion even calls in your thoughts dating but instead defines a feature through which many people on online dating sites may identify by themselves. The Complainant records that the Respondent will not provide a conclusion as to why it only registered a domain title which can be a phonetic equivalent and typical misspelling of this Complainant’s trademark as opposed to register other characteristics of people, incorporating that “tender” is certainly not generic for a dating site and that users will be almost certainly going to seek out “date”, “dating” or similar terms rather than “tender”.