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. On March 7, 2018, the guts transmitted by e-mail towards the Registrar a ask for registrar verification associated with 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 while the registrant and supplying the contact information. As a result to a notification because of the Center that the Complaint had been administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment towards the 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 issue with the amended grievance satisfied the formal needs of this Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the principles for Uniform website 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 guidelines, paragraphs 2 and 4, the middle formally notified the Respondent regarding the Complaint, while the procedures commenced on March 16, 2018. According to the guidelines, paragraph 5, the deadline for reaction ended up being April 5, 2018. The reaction had been filed using the focus on April 5, 2018. The Respondent filed a supplement to its reaction on April 5, 2018. The Complainant filed a filing that is supplemental April 13, 2018 plus 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 precisely 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 aided by the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background. The Complainant has been doing the company of providing online social media, dating and match-making services since 2012 and runs a favorite dating solution under its TINDER trademarks.
The Complainant partcipates in significant advertising tasks among these solutions 12 months 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 individual records, search and view user profiles, play a role in message boards, and read helpful and informative articles in 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 matches that are dating 2012.
The Complainant holds a number of authorized trademarks both for figurative and term markings in respect regarding the 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 term mark TINDER, registered on June 14, 2016 in worldwide course 45 ( Internet-based social network, introduction and online dating services).
The disputed domain title is made on March 2, 2016. The Respondent describes that it is a startup company running a dating company. The internet site from the disputed domain title features the phrase “Tender” in prominent red letters, underneath that is stated in smaller typeface “Free internet dating for tender, type and loving singles” together with a fall down menu for the consumer to pick their sex and a “Join now” key.
In line with the screenshots created 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 most notable type of the initial ad might have been obscured):
5. Events’ Contentions. The Complainant contends that the disputed website name is identical or confusingly much like a trademark for which it has liberties;
That the Respondent does not have any liberties or genuine passions into the disputed domain title; and therefore the disputed domain title ended up being registered and it is used in bad faith.
The Complainant states that the disputed website name is practically exactly the same as its TINDER mark but also for a minor misspelling and ended up being registered under circumstances typo-squatting that is constituting. The Complainant adds that while panels generally speaking don’t think about the top-level domain whenever assessing confusing similarity, the Respondent’s utilization of the “. Singles” top-level domain shows that the disputed domain title is supposed to connect with the Complainant’s solutions and strengthens the recognized link with the Complainant.
The Complainant records that the Respondent is certainly not connected to or endorsed because of the Complainant and has now never ever been certified or authorized to utilize some of its subscribed markings, nor any confusingly similar designation, 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) regarding the Policy nor any kind of proven fact that may establish legal rights or the best desire for the disputed domain title. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not yet used the domain that is disputed in experience of a genuine 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 web site where users are confronted by numerous recommendations to dating and matchmaking solutions that are made to confusingly claim 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 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 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 is 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, well 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 the fact that the internet site from the disputed website name prominently features the “Tender” designation along side adverts for free internet dating. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent deliberately tries to attract internet surfers via confusion produced because of the Complainant’s TINDER mark regarding https://www.besthookupwebsites.net/fling-review/ the supply, sponsorship, affiliation or recommendation of this disputed domain title whereby such users will think they’ve been coping with the Complainant or that the disputed domain name 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 looking for “tender” and dating would be much more very likely to do this centered 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 it strains credulity that the Respondent would spend the same in excess of USD 35,000 marketing an presumably generic website which will be one of the main so it has according to a dictionary term often found in dating profiles. The Complainant adds that the Respondent will never do this if it failed to 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 as this really is unsupported by evidence.
The Complainant submits that the known proven fact that “tender” may have a dictionary meaning will not stick it inside a safe-harbor that will be resistant from 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 make use of the web web site for content highly relevant to this is of the term, the Respondent provides no proof that “tender” means dating, implies dating, and even calls to mind dating but alternatively defines a characteristic through which many people on online dating sites may determine by themselves. The Complainant records that the Respondent will not provide a description as to the reasons it only registered a domain title that is a phonetic comparable and typical misspelling associated with the Complainant’s trademark rather than register other characteristics of an individual, incorporating that “tender” isn’t generic for the dating internet site and that users is almost certainly going to seek out “date”, “dating” or similar terms instead of “tender”.