1. The Events
The Complainant is Match Group, LLC of Dallas, Texas, usa (“United States”), represented by Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, usa.
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 utilizing 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 to your Center its verification reaction confirming that the Respondent is detailed once the registrant and supplying the contact information. In reaction up to a notification because of the Center that the Complaint ended up being administratively lacking, the Complainant filed an amendment towards 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 problem with the amended problem pleased the formal demands for the Uniform Domain title Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the guidelines for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), additionally the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules” that is“Supplemental).
Prior to the principles, paragraphs 2 and 4, the guts formally notified the Respondent associated with Complaint, together with procedures commenced on March 16, 2018. Prior to the guidelines, paragraph 5, the date that is due reaction had been April 5, 2018. The reaction had been filed with all the focus on 5, 2018 april. The Respondent filed a health 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 due to the fact single panelist in 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 required because of the Center to make sure conformity because of the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background. The Complainant has been doing 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 the solutions on 12 months year. The Complainant has and runs the internet sites “www. Gotinder.com” and “www. Tinder.com” to facilitate its solutions. Regarding the “Tinder” branded users that are website produce individual reports, 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 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 authorized trademarks for both figurative and term markings in respect for the TINDER mark including, as an example, United States registered trademark no. 4479131 when it comes to 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 term mark TINDER, registered on June 14, 2016 in worldwide class 45 ( Internet-based social media, introduction and online dating services).
The disputed domain https://besthookupwebsites.net/instabang-review/ 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 will be stated in smaller typeface “Free online dating sites for tender, sort and loving singles” together with a drop down menu for the consumer to pick their sex and a “Join now” key.
On the basis of the screenshots created by the Respondent from its Bing AdWords account, it appears to own utilized the text that is following its adverts (although the Panel records that the most truly effective type of the very first advertisement might have been obscured):
5. Events’ Contentions. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly much like a trademark by which it owns liberties;
That the Respondent doesn’t have legal rights or legitimate passions when you look at the domain that is disputed; and that 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 identical to 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 domain that is top-level assessing confusing similarity, the Respondent’s utilization of the “. Singles” top-level domain shows that the disputed domain title is supposed to relate with the Complainant’s solutions and strengthens the identified link with the Complainant.
The Complainant records that the Respondent just isn’t associated with or endorsed by the Complainant and it has never ever been certified 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 put down in paragraph 4(c) for the Policy nor any kind of undeniable fact that may establish liberties or the best desire for the domain name that is disputed. The Complainant contends that the Respondent hasn’t utilized the domain that is disputed in experience of a genuine offering of products or services since it is willfully exploiting the Complainant’s appeal and trading on its goodwill, noting that internet surfers are lured up to a questionable site where users are confronted by numerous recommendations to dating and matchmaking solutions 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 had been it therefore understood if the disputed domain title had been registered. The Complainant adds that the Respondent are not able to demonstrate a legitimate noncommercial or fair utilization of the domain that is disputed and therefore 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 worthiness of this 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, well before the disputed domain title ended up being registered. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent promises to misappropriate the TINDER mark to deceive customers and draw a poor association, considering that the site from the disputed website name prominently features the “Tender” designation along side ads 100% free dating that is online. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent deliberately tries to attract internet surfers via confusion produced utilizing the Complainant’s TINDER mark regarding the supply, sponsorship, affiliation or recommendation of this domain that is disputed whereby such users will think these are typically 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 by the Respondent.
The Complainant asserts that users looking for “tender” and dating would be much more very likely to achieve this according to 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 will never do this if it would not make much more in exchange. The Complainant additionally asks the Panel to disregard the Respondent’s claim regarding its enrollment 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 inside a safe-harbor which will be immune through the Policy, noting that the Respondent will not argue that the Complainant’s trademark is generic. The Complainant asserts that while a celebration may legitimately register a website name composed of a dictionary term and utilize the web web site for content strongly related the meaning of the term, the Respondent provides no proof that “tender” means dating, implies dating, if not calls in your thoughts dating but alternatively defines a feature in which a lot of people on internet dating sites may identify on their own. The Complainant records that the Respondent will not provide a description as to why it just registered a domain title that is a phonetic equivalent and typical misspelling associated with 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 almost certainly going to seek out “date”, “dating” or similar terms instead of “tender”.