1. The Events
The Complainant is Match Group, LLC of Dallas, Texas, united states (“United States”), represented by Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, usa.
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 had been 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 once the registrant and supplying the contact information. In reaction up to a notification by the Center that the Complaint had been administratively lacking, the Complainant filed an amendment to your 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 with the amended issue pleased the formal demands regarding the Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the guidelines for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and also the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain title Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
According to the principles, paragraphs 2 and 4, the middle formally notified the Respondent associated with Complaint, while 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 reaction had been filed with all the focus on April 5, 2018. The Respondent filed a health 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 while 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 Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as needed because of the Center to make sure conformity aided by the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background. The Complainant has been doing 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 marketing tasks of the solutions on year year. The Complainant has and runs the internet sites “www. Gotinder.com” and “www. Tinder.com” to facilitate its solutions. On the “Tinder” branded users that are website produce individual 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 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 dating matches since 2012.
The Complainant holds a number of subscribed trademarks for both figurative and term markings in respect associated with the 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 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 https://besthookupwebsites.net/filipinocupid-review/ media, 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 dating company. The internet site linked to the disputed domain title features the term “Tender” in prominent red letters, underneath which can be stated in smaller typeface “Free online dating sites for tender, sort and loving singles” together by having a drop down menu for an individual to choose their gender and a “Join now” key.
On the basis of the screenshots generated by the Respondent from the Google AdWords account, it seems to own utilized the text that is following its ads (even though the Panel records that the very best type of the very first ad was obscured):
5. Events’ Contentions. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain title is identical or confusingly just like a trademark for which it has legal rights;
That the Respondent doesn’t have liberties or genuine passions into the disputed domain title; and therefore the disputed website name ended up being 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 however for a small misspelling and had been 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 whenever assessing confusing similarity, the Respondent’s utilization of the “. Singles” top-level domain shows that the disputed website name is supposed to relate solely to the Complainant’s solutions and strengthens the recognized link with the Complainant.
The Complainant records that the Respondent just isn’t connected to or endorsed because of the Complainant and contains never been certified or authorized to utilize any one of its subscribed markings, nor any confusingly similar designation, included in a domain 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 legal rights or the best fascination with the disputed website name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent have not utilized the disputed domain title 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 up to a questionable website where users are met with numerous sources to dating and matchmaking solutions that are made 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 ended up being it so 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 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 associated with 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 therefore its formal domain ended up being registered on June 22, 2012, a long time before the domain that is disputed 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 from the disputed domain title prominently features the “Tender” designation along side ads 100% free internet dating. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent deliberately tries to attract individuals via confusion produced utilizing the Complainant’s TINDER mark regarding the supply, sponsorship, affiliation or recommendation associated with the disputed domain title whereby such users will believe these are typically 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 have now been made knowingly and deceitfully by the Respondent.
The Complainant asserts that users trying to find “tender” and dating would become more prone to do 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 the same of greater than USD 35,000 marketing an presumably generic website that will be one of the main it has according to a dictionary term often found in dating pages. The Complainant adds that the Respondent will never do this if it would not make much more in exchange. The Complainant also asks the Panel to dismiss the Respondent’s claim regarding its enrollment and make use of 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 will not stick it within a safe-harbor which will 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 site for content highly relevant to this is of this term, the Respondent provides no proof that “tender” means dating, indicates dating, and even calls in your thoughts dating but alternatively defines a characteristic through which a lot of people on online dating sites may recognize by themselves. The Complainant records that the Respondent will not offer a description as to the reasons it just registered a domain title which can be a phonetic comparable and typical misspelling associated with the Complainant’s trademark as opposed to register other characteristics of people, incorporating that “tender” isn’t generic for a dating internet site and that users will be very likely to search for “date”, “dating” or similar terms instead of “tender”.