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 Website Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint had been 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 towards the Center its verification reaction confirming that the Respondent is detailed due to the fact registrant and supplying the contact information. In reaction to a notification by the Center that the Complaint had been administratively lacking, the Complainant filed an amendment to your issue 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 grievance with the amended problem pleased the formal demands for the Uniform Domain title Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the guidelines for Uniform Domain title Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), while the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain title Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules” that is“Supplemental).
Prior to the principles, paragraphs 2 and 4, the middle formally notified the Respondent associated with the Complaint, together with procedures commenced on March 16, 2018. Prior to the guidelines, paragraph 5, the deadline for reaction had been April 5, 2018. The reaction had been filed using the focus on 5, 2018 april. The Respondent filed a supplement to its reaction on April 5, 2018. The Complainant filed a supplemental filing on April 13, 2018 and also the Respondent filed a supplemental filing on April 14, 2018.
The Center appointed Andrew D. S. Lothian once the single panelist in this matter on April 27, 2018. The Panel discovers it was correctly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of recognition and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to make sure compliance because of the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background. The Complainant has been around the business enterprise 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 significant advertising tasks among these solutions 12 months on year. The Complainant has and runs the web sites “www. Gotinder.com” and “www. Tinder.com” to facilitate its solutions. Regarding the “Tinder” branded internet site users may produce individual accounts, search and view user pages, play a role in message boards, and read helpful and informative articles from 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 variation has already reached over 100 million installs since inception in July 2013 and over 10 billion dating matches since 2012.
A variety is held by the Complainant of subscribed trademarks for both figurative and term markings in respect of this TINDER mark including, as an 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 describes it is a startup company running a dating company. The internet site from the disputed domain title features the phrase “Tender” in prominent pink letters, underneath that will be stated in smaller typeface “Free internet dating for tender, type and loving singles” together by having a fall down menu for an individual to pick their sex and a “Join now” key.
In line with the screenshots generated by the Respondent from the Bing AdWords account, it seems to own used the text that is following its ads (even though the Panel records that the utmost effective type of the very first ad might have been obscured):
5. Events’ Contentions. The Complainant contends that the disputed website name is identical or confusingly much like a trademark by which it owns legal rights;
A. Complainant
That the Respondent does not have any legal rights or genuine passions into the disputed website name; and therefore the disputed domain title had been registered and it is getting used in bad faith.
The Complainant states that the disputed website name is virtually identical to its TINDER mark however for a minor misspelling and ended up being registered under circumstances constituting typo-squatting. The Complainant adds that while panels generally speaking 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 domain title is supposed to relate with the Complainant’s services and strengthens the identified 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 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) associated with the Policy nor any kind of undeniable fact that may establish liberties or the best desire for the disputed website name. 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 online users are lured to a questionable site where users are confronted by multiple recommendations 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 hasn’t become popularly known as “tender”, nor ended up being it therefore understood if the disputed domain title had been registered. The Complainant adds that the Respondent cannot demonstrate a legitimate noncommercial or reasonable utilization of the disputed website name 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 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 website name ended up being registered. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent promises to misappropriate the TINDER mark to deceive customers and draw an incorrect relationship, considering that the internet site linked to the disputed domain title prominently features the “Tender” designation along side adverts 100% free dating that is online. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent deliberately tries to attract online users via confusion generated with all the Complainant’s TINDER mark regarding the supply, sponsorship, affiliation or recommendation associated with the disputed website name whereby such users will believe they have been 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 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 achieve this predicated on understanding 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 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 failed to make a lot more http://www.besthookupwebsites.net/scruff-review in exchange. The Complainant additionally asks the Panel to overlook the Respondent’s claim regarding its use and registration of other names of domain since this really is unsupported by evidence.
The Complainant submits that the undeniable fact that “tender” may have a dictionary meaning will not stick it inside a safe-harbor that will be resistant through the Policy, noting that the Respondent doesn’t argue that the Complainant’s trademark is generic. The Complainant asserts that while a celebration may legitimately register a domain title composed of a dictionary term and utilize the web web web site for content highly relevant to this is of this term, the Respondent offers no proof that “tender” means dating, shows dating, if not calls in your thoughts dating but alternatively defines an feature through which some people on online dating sites may determine on their own. The Complainant records that the Respondent doesn’t provide a reason as to why it just registered a domain title that will 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 the dating internet site and that users is almost certainly going to seek out “date”, “dating” or similar terms instead of “tender”.