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 using the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 7, 2018. On March 7, 2018, the middle sent by email into the Registrar a ask for registrar verification regarding the the disputed domain title. On March 8, 2018, the Registrar sent by e-mail towards the Center its verification reaction confirming that the Respondent is detailed because the registrant and supplying the contact information. In reaction up to a notification because of the guts that the Complaint had been 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 grievance with the amended problem satisfied the formal requirements 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 Rules” that is“Supplemental).
Relative to the principles, paragraphs 2 and 4, the middle formally notified the Respondent associated with the Complaint, and also the procedures commenced on March 16, 2018. Prior to the principles, paragraph 5, the date that is due reaction had been April 5, 2018. The Response had been filed because of the target 5, 2018 april. The Respondent filed a health health supplement to its reaction on 5, 2018 april. The Complainant filed a supplemental filing on April 13, 2018 plus 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 middle to make sure conformity aided by 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 service under its TINDER trademarks.
The Complainant partcipates in significant advertising tasks among these services on 12 months year. The Complainant has and runs https://besthookupwebsites.net/pinkcupid-review/ those 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 user pages, play a role in community forums, and read helpful and informative articles in the official “Tinder” web log.
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 matches that are dating 2012.
A variety is held by the Complainant of authorized trademarks both for figurative and term markings in respect of this TINDER mark including, for instance, usa registered trademark no. 4479131 for the term mark TINDER, registered on February 4, 2014 in international 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 social networking, 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 from the disputed website name features the phrase “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 made by the Respondent from the Bing AdWords account, it seems to possess utilized the after text on its adverts (even though the Panel records that the most notable type of the initial advertisement might have been obscured):
5. Events’ 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 interests when you look at the domain that is disputed; and therefore the disputed domain title had been 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 had been registered under circumstances typo-squatting that is constituting. The Complainant adds that while panels generally try not to look at the top-level domain whenever 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 solutions and strengthens the sensed link with the Complainant.
The Complainant records that the Respondent is certainly not connected to or endorsed by the Complainant and it has never ever been licensed or authorized to utilize any one of its authorized markings, nor any designation that is confusingly similar included in 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 any kind of proven fact that may establish liberties or the best curiosity about the domain name that is disputed. The Complainant contends that the Respondent hasn’t utilized the disputed website name 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 to a questionable internet site where users are met with numerous sources 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 has not yet become popularly known as “tender”, nor had been it therefore understood if the domain that is disputed had been registered. The Complainant adds that the Respondent are not able to demonstrate a legitimate noncommercial or reasonable utilization of the disputed domain name and that in misappropriating the Complainant’s marks the Respondent is leveraging the Complainant’s goodwill and appeal because of its very own advantage and simultaneously diminishing the worth associated with the Complainant, its markings and online dating services.
The Complainant states so it was 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 disputed website name ended up being registered. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent promises to misappropriate the TINDER mark to deceive customers and draw a poor relationship, considering that the internet site linked to the disputed website name prominently features the “Tender” designation along side adverts 100% free online dating sites. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent deliberately tries to attract online users via confusion produced aided by the Complainant’s TINDER mark regarding the supply, sponsorship, affiliation or recommendation regarding the domain that is disputed whereby such users will think these are typically working with the Complainant or that the disputed website name 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 trying to find “tender” and dating would be much more prone to achieve this centered on knowing of the Complainant’s TINDER trademark, contending it is a lot more plausible that the Respondent find the disputed domain name since it is confusingly comparable thereto. The Complainant submits so it owns based on a dictionary word sometimes used in dating profiles that it strains credulity that the Respondent would spend the equivalent of more than USD 35,000 promoting an allegedly generic site which is one of many. The Complainant adds that the Respondent wouldn’t normally do this if it would not make far more in exchange. The Complainant additionally asks the Panel to overlook the Respondent’s claim regarding its enrollment and make use of of other names of domain since this really is unsupported by proof.
The Complainant submits that the known undeniable fact that “tender” may have a dictionary meaning will not stick it inside 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 dictionary term and make use of the web web web site for content strongly related the meaning of this term, the Respondent provides no proof that “tender” means dating, implies dating, and on occasion even calls in your thoughts dating but instead defines a characteristic in which a lot of people on internet dating sites may recognize by themselves. The Complainant notes that the Respondent will not provide a description as to the reasons it just registered a domain title which can be a phonetic comparable and typical misspelling associated with Complainant’s trademark as opposed to register other characteristics of an individual, adding that “tender” is not generic for a dating site and that users could be almost certainly going to seek out “date”, “dating” or similar terms instead of “tender”.