1. The Parties
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 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 email into the Center its verification reaction confirming that the Respondent is detailed due to the fact registrant and providing the contact information. In reaction to a notification because of the middle that the Complaint had been administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment into the issue on March 13, 2018. The Center received communications that are several 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 needs associated with Uniform website name 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 Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
Prior to the guidelines, paragraphs 2 and 4, the middle formally notified the Respondent regarding the Complaint, together with proceedings commenced on March 16, 2018. Prior to the guidelines, paragraph 5, the deadline for reaction had been April 5, 2018. The reaction ended up being filed aided by the focus on April 5, 2018. The Respondent filed a health supplement to its reaction on 5, 2018 april. The Complainant filed a supplemental filing on April 13, 2018 as well as 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 finds 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 with the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background. The Complainant has been around the company 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 12 months on year. The Complainant has and operates those sites “www. Gotinder.com” and “www. Tinder.com” to facilitate its solutions. Regarding the “Tinder” branded users that are website produce individual records, search and view user pages, subscribe to community forums, and read helpful and informative articles from the official “Tinder” web log.
The Complainant reaches consumers global via its popular “Tinder” dating and social network 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 dating matches since 2012.
A variety is held by the Complainant of subscribed 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 course 9 (mobile computer programs) and usa registered trademark no. 4976225 when it comes to word mark TINDER, registered on June 14, 2016 in worldwide course 45 ( Internet-based networking that is social introduction and dating services).
The disputed domain name is made on March 2, 2016. The Respondent explains 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 that will be stated in smaller typeface “Free internet dating for tender, sort and loving singles” together by having a fall down menu for an individual to choose their sex and a “Join now” key.
On the basis of the screenshots created 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 most truly effective type of the initial advertisement 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 owns liberties;
That the Respondent does not have any legal rights or legitimate passions into the domain that is disputed; and therefore the disputed domain title ended up being registered and it is getting used in bad faith.
The Complainant states that the disputed domain title is practically the same as its TINDER mark however 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 look at the top-level domain when assessing confusing similarity, the Respondent’s use of the “. Singles” top-level domain shows that the disputed website name 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 contains never ever been certified or authorized to utilize some of its authorized markings, nor any confusingly comparable designation, as an element of a website name. The Complainant submits that the Respondent cannot demonstrate some of the circumstances put down in paragraph 4(c) of this 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 have not utilized the domain that is disputed in experience of a bona fide offering of products or solutions since it is willfully exploiting the Complainant’s appeal and trading on its goodwill, noting that individuals are lured up to a questionable site where users are confronted by numerous recommendations 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 commonly known as “tender”, nor ended up being it therefore understood if the disputed website name 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 that in misappropriating the Complainant’s marks the Respondent is leveraging the Complainant’s goodwill and appeal for the very own advantage and simultaneously diminishing the worth of this Complainant, its marks and online dating services.
The Complainant states so it was using its TINDER mark since as soon as August 2, 2012 and that its formal domain ended up being 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 consumers and draw a 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 attempts to attract online users via confusion created with all the Complainant’s TINDER mark regarding the supply, sponsorship, affiliation or recommendation regarding the domain that is disputed whereby such users will think they’ve been coping with the Complainant or that the disputed website name is affiliated to or endorsed by the Complainant. The Complainant adds that such actions were made knowingly and deceitfully because of the Respondent.
The Complainant asserts that users looking for “tender” and dating would become more prone to do this predicated on knowing of the Complainant’s TINDER trademark, contending that it is far 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 the same in excess of USD 35,000 marketing an presumably generic website that is one of the most significant it has according to a dictionary word often found in dating pages. The Complainant adds that the Respondent will never do this if it would not make a lot more in exchange. The Complainant additionally asks the Panel to overlook the Respondent’s claim regarding its registration and employ of other names of domain as this 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 doesn’t argue that the Complainant’s trademark is generic. The Complainant asserts that while an event may legitimately register a website name composed of a dictionary term and utilize the web site for content highly relevant to this is of the 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 through which some people on internet dating sites may determine by themselves. The Complainant records that the Respondent doesn’t offer a description as to why it just registered a domain title that will be a phonetic comparable and typical misspelling of this Complainant’s trademark as opposed to register other characteristics of an individual, incorporating that “tender” isn’t generic for a dating site and that users could be almost certainly going to seek out “date”, “dating” or similar terms instead of “tender”.