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. On March 7, 2018, the middle sent by e-mail towards the Registrar a request registrar verification relating to the disputed domain title. On March 8, 2018, the Registrar sent by e-mail to your Center its verification reaction confirming that the Respondent is detailed due to the fact registrant and supplying the contact information. In reaction up to a notification because of the middle 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 alongside the amended grievance pleased the formal demands associated with Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the guidelines for Uniform Domain title Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and also the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
Relative to the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the guts formally notified the Respondent regarding the Complaint, and also the procedures commenced on March 16, 2018. Relative to the principles, paragraph 5, the date that is due reaction had been April 5, 2018. The reaction had been filed utilizing the focus on April 5, 2018. The Respondent filed a health health supplement to its reaction on 5, 2018 april. The Complainant filed a filing that is supplemental April 13, 2018 while 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 finds it was correctly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of recognition and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as needed because of the middle to make certain conformity aided by the https://besthookupwebsites.net/lavalife-review/ Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background. The Complainant has been around the business enterprise of providing online social media, 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 year 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 web site users may create individual reports, search and view user pages, play a role in message boards, and read helpful and informative articles in the official “Tinder” weblog.
The Complainant reaches consumers global via its popular “Tinder” dating and networking that is social 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 both for figurative and term marks in respect regarding 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 network, 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 name features the term “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 an individual to pick 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 own utilized the after text on its ads (even though the Panel records that the most effective type of initial ad was obscured):
5. Events’ Contentions. The Complainant contends that the disputed website name is identical or confusingly much like a trademark in which it owns legal rights;
That the Respondent does not have any legal rights or genuine passions within the domain that is disputed; and therefore the disputed website name had been registered and it is used in bad faith.
The Complainant states that the disputed domain title is practically the same as its TINDER mark but also for a small misspelling and had been 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 connect with the Complainant’s solutions and strengthens the identified link with the Complainant.
The Complainant notes that the Respondent isn’t associated with or endorsed by the Complainant and contains never ever been certified or authorized to utilize some of its authorized marks, nor any confusingly comparable designation, included in a website name. The Complainant submits that the Respondent cannot demonstrate some of the circumstances put down in paragraph 4(c) of this Policy nor any kind of undeniable fact that may establish legal rights or the best desire for the domain name that is disputed. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not yet utilized the domain that is disputed in reference to a real offering of products or solutions because it is willfully exploiting the Complainant’s appeal and trading on its goodwill, noting that internet surfers are lured to a dubious site where users are met with numerous recommendations to dating and matchmaking solutions that are built to confusingly declare that the Respondent may be the Complainant or endorsed or affiliated therewith. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent have not become commonly known as “tender”, nor ended up being it therefore understood once the disputed website name ended up being registered. The Complainant adds that the Respondent are not able to 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 popularity for the very own advantage and simultaneously diminishing the worthiness of this 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 that its official 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 improper relationship, considering that the web site linked to the disputed website name 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 produced using the Complainant’s TINDER mark regarding the supply, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement for the disputed website name whereby such users will think these are generally working with the Complainant or that the disputed domain title 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 trying to find “tender” and dating would become more prone to achieve this according to understanding 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 strains credulity that the Respondent would spend very same in excess of USD 35,000 advertising an presumably generic site which can be one of the most significant so it has according to a dictionary term often utilized in dating pages. The Complainant adds that the Respondent wouldn’t normally do this if it didn’t make far more in exchange. The Complainant also asks the Panel to dismiss the Respondent’s claim regarding its use and registration of other names of domain since that is unsupported by evidence.
The Complainant submits that the known proven fact that “tender” may have a dictionary meaning will not stick it within a safe-harbor which can be resistant through the Policy, noting that the Respondent doesn’t 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 the term, the Respondent provides no proof that “tender” means dating, indicates dating, and even calls in your thoughts dating but alternatively defines a feature in which some people on internet dating sites may determine on their own. The Complainant records that the Respondent will not provide a conclusion as to the reasons it only registered a domain title that will be a phonetic comparable and typical misspelling of this Complainant’s trademark rather than register other characteristics of people, incorporating that “tender” isn’t generic for the dating site and that users could be almost certainly going to seek out “date”, “dating” or similar terms instead of “tender”.