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 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 sent by e-mail towards the Center its verification reaction confirming that the Respondent is detailed due to the fact registrant and supplying the contact information. As a result to a notification because of the Center that the Complaint ended up being https://besthookupwebsites.net/chappy-review/ administratively lacking, the Complainant filed an amendment into 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 problem alongside the amended grievance satisfied the formal demands associated with the Uniform Domain title Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the principles for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), additionally the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
Relative to the principles, paragraphs 2 and 4, the middle formally notified the Respondent regarding the Complaint, additionally the procedures commenced on March 16, 2018. Prior to the principles, paragraph 5, the deadline for reaction ended up being April 5, 2018. The reaction had been filed because of the focus on 5, 2018 april. The Respondent filed a health supplement to its reaction on April 5, 2018. The Complainant filed a filing that is supplemental April 13, 2018 as well as 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 finds 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 certain conformity because of the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background. The Complainant has been doing the business enterprise 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 significant advertising tasks among these solutions year on 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 personal records, search and view user pages, play a role in community forums, and read helpful and informative articles from the official “Tinder” weblog.
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 already 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 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 international 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 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 operating a dating company. The web site from the disputed domain title 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 drop down menu for the consumer to pick their sex and a “Join now” key.
In line with the screenshots generated by the Respondent from the Bing AdWords account, it seems to own utilized the text that is following its adverts (even though the Panel records that the utmost effective type of the initial ad was obscured):
5. Parties’ Contentions. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain title is identical or confusingly just like a trademark by which it has liberties;
That the Respondent doesn’t have liberties or genuine interests when you look at the domain that is disputed; and therefore the disputed website name had been registered and it is getting 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 ended up being registered under circumstances typo-squatting that is constituting. The Complainant adds that while panels generally speaking usually do not think about the top-level domain whenever assessing confusing similarity, the Respondent’s use of the “. Singles” top-level domain shows that the disputed domain title is supposed to connect with the Complainant’s solutions and strengthens the observed link with the Complainant.
The Complainant notes that the Respondent 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 subscribed markings, nor any confusingly similar designation, as an element of a domain name. The Complainant submits that the Respondent cannot demonstrate some of the circumstances lay out in paragraph 4(c) for the Policy nor some other proven fact that may establish legal rights or the best curiosity about the disputed domain title. The Complainant contends that the Respondent have not utilized the domain that is disputed 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 online users 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 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 understood once the disputed website name had been registered. The Complainant adds that the Respondent are not able to demonstrate a legitimate noncommercial or reasonable use 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 very own benefit and simultaneously diminishing the worthiness associated with Complainant, its markings and online dating services.
The Complainant states 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 website name had been registered. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent promises to misappropriate the TINDER mark to deceive consumers and draw an incorrect association, considering the fact that the internet site from 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 internet surfers via confusion created using the Complainant’s TINDER mark regarding the supply, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement for the disputed domain title whereby such users will think they truly are coping with the Complainant or that the disputed domain title is affiliated to or endorsed because of the Complainant. The Complainant adds that such actions were made knowingly and deceitfully by 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 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 can be one of the many so it has centered on a dictionary term often utilized in dating pages. The Complainant adds that the Respondent wouldn’t normally do this if it would not make much more in exchange. 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 doesn’t put it inside 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 domain title composed of a dictionary term and utilize the web site for content highly relevant to this is of the word, the Respondent provides no proof that “tender” means dating, indicates dating, and even calls in your thoughts dating but instead defines an feature through which some people on internet dating sites may recognize on their own. The Complainant records that the Respondent will not provide a conclusion as to why it just registered a domain title that is a phonetic comparable and typical misspelling for the Complainant’s trademark as opposed to register other characteristics of people, adding that “tender” isn’t generic for a dating internet site and that users could be almost certainly going to seek out “date”, “dating” or similar terms instead of “tender”.