1. The Events
The Complainant is Match Group, LLC of Dallas, Texas, usa (“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 into the Center its verification reaction confirming that the Respondent is detailed while the registrant and supplying the contact details. As a result up to a notification because of the guts that the Complaint ended up being administratively deficient, 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 issue with the amended issue pleased the formal demands of this Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the guidelines for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), additionally the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules” that is“Supplemental).
According to the principles, paragraphs 2 and 4, the guts formally notified the Respondent associated with the Complaint, additionally the proceedings commenced on March 16, 2018. Prior to the guidelines, paragraph 5, the due date for reaction had been April 5, 2018. The Response had been filed using the focus on 5, 2018 april. The Respondent filed a supplement to its reaction on 5, 2018 april. The Complainant filed a supplemental filing on April 13, 2018 additionally the Respondent filed a supplemental filing on April 14, 2018.
The Center appointed Andrew D. S. Lothian because 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 guts to make certain conformity because of the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background. The Complainant has been around the company of providing online social media, dating and match-making services since 2012 and operates a favorite relationship solution under its TINDER trademarks.
The Complainant partcipates in significant advertising tasks of those services on 12 months year. The Complainant has and runs web sites “www. Gotinder.com” and “www. Tinder.com” to facilitate its services. Regarding the “Tinder” branded internet site users may create individual records, search and view user pages, subscribe to community forums, and read helpful and informative articles in 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 registered trademarks for both figurative and term marks in respect of this TINDER mark including, for example, usa registered trademark no. 4479131 for the 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 networking that is social introduction and online dating services).
The domain that is disputed was made on March 2, 2016. The Respondent explains it is a startup company running a dating company. The internet site from the disputed domain title features the term “Tender” in prominent red letters, underneath which 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 made by the Respondent from the Bing AdWords account, it seems to possess used the text that is following its ads (even though the Panel notes that the most notable type of the initial ad 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 legal rights;
That the Respondent doesn’t have legal rights or genuine passions into the disputed domain name; and therefore the disputed website name 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 try not to think about 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 recognized 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 certified or authorized to make use of any one of its authorized markings, nor any designation that is confusingly similar as an element of 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 any other undeniable fact that may establish liberties or a legitimate curiosity about the domain name that is disputed. The Complainant contends that the Respondent have not utilized the domain that is disputed 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 web site where users are confronted by numerous sources to dating and matchmaking services that are made to confusingly declare 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 ended up being 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 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 very own advantage and simultaneously diminishing the worthiness associated with 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 had been registered on June 22, 2012, well before the disputed domain title had been registered. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent promises to misappropriate the TINDER mark to deceive customers and draw an incorrect relationship, considering the fact that the internet site from the disputed domain title prominently features the “Tender” designation along side positivesingles ads 100% free internet dating. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent deliberately tries to attract internet surfers via confusion produced aided by the Complainant’s TINDER mark regarding the supply, sponsorship, affiliation or recommendation of this disputed domain title whereby such users will think they have 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 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 the same in excess of USD 35,000 marketing an presumably generic website which will be among the many so it has according to a dictionary term often utilized in dating pages. 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 enrollment and make use of of other names of domain as that is unsupported by evidence.
The Complainant submits that the known undeniable fact that “tender” may have a dictionary meaning will not stick it within a safe-harbor that 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 domain title composed of a dictionary term and make use of the web web site for content highly relevant to this is of the word, the Respondent provides no proof that “tender” means dating, shows dating, and sometimes even calls in your thoughts dating but instead defines a characteristic through which a lot of people on internet dating sites may determine on their own. The Complainant records that the Respondent will not provide a reason as to why it just registered a domain title which can be a phonetic comparable and typical misspelling of this Complainant’s trademark as opposed to register other characteristics of an individual, incorporating that “tender” is certainly not generic for a dating site and that users will be very likely to seek out “date”, “dating” or similar terms rather than “tender”.