1. The Events
The Complainant is Match Group, LLC of Dallas, Texas, united states (“United States”), represented by Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, usa.
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 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. As a result up to a notification because of the middle that the Complaint ended up being administratively lacking, the Complainant filed an amendment towards the 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 problem with the amended grievance pleased the formal demands of this Uniform Domain title Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the principles for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), additionally the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
Prior to the principles, paragraphs 2 and 4, the middle formally notified the Respondent associated with the Complaint, in addition to procedures commenced on March 16, 2018. Relative to the guidelines, paragraph 5, the date that is due reaction had been April 5, 2018. The reaction was filed aided by the focus on April 5, 2018. The Respondent filed a health health health 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 finds it was precisely constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the middle to make sure conformity aided by the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background. The Complainant has been around the company of providing online networking that is social dating and match-making services since 2012 and runs a favorite relationship service 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 site users may produce individual reports, search and view user pages, play a role in community forums, and read helpful and informative articles in 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 os version 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 subscribed trademarks for both figurative and term markings in respect of this TINDER mark including, as an example, United States 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 disputed domain title was made on March 2, 2016. The Respondent describes it is a startup company running a dating company. The web site linked to the disputed website name features the term “Tender” in prominent red letters, underneath which can be stated in smaller typeface “Free internet dating for tender, type and loving singles” together by having a fall down menu for the consumer to choose their sex and a “Join now” key.
In line with the screenshots created by the Respondent from the Bing AdWords account, it seems to possess utilized the following text on its ads (even though the Panel records that the most effective type of the very first ad was obscured):
5. Events’ Contentions. The Complainant contends that the disputed website name is identical or confusingly much like a trademark for which it has legal rights;
That the Respondent does not have any legal rights or legitimate passions when you look at the domain that is disputed; and therefore the disputed website name had been registered and it is getting used in bad faith.
The Complainant states that the disputed website name is practically the same as its TINDER mark but also for a small misspelling and had been registered under circumstances constituting typo-squatting. The Complainant adds that while panels generally speaking usually do not think about the domain that is top-level evaluating confusing similarity, the Respondent’s utilization of the “. Singles” top-level domain shows that the disputed website name is intended to connect with the Complainant’s solutions and strengthens the sensed connection to 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 approved to make use of some 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 lay out in paragraph 4(c) of this Policy nor some other proven fact that may establish legal rights or the best curiosity about the domain name that is disputed. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not yet used the domain that is disputed in reference to a real offering of products or services 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 met with numerous sources to dating and matchmaking services that are built 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 once the disputed domain title 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 for the very very own advantage and simultaneously diminishing the worth regarding the Complainant, its markings and online dating services.
The Complainant states it happens to be which consists of TINDER mark since as soon as August 2, 2012 and that its official domain had been 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 a poor relationship, considering that the internet site linked to the disputed website name prominently features the “Tender” designation along side adverts 100% free internet dating. 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 disputed domain title whereby such users will think they have been working with the Complainant or that the disputed website name is https://besthookupwebsites.net/oasis-dating-review/ 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 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 very same in excess of USD 35,000 marketing an presumably generic website which can be among the many it has predicated on a dictionary term often utilized in dating profiles. 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 overlook the Respondent’s claim regarding its enrollment and employ of other names of domain as that is unsupported by proof.
The Complainant submits that the known proven fact that “tender” may have a dictionary meaning doesn’t stick it within a safe-harbor which 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 make use of the web web site for content highly relevant to this is of this term, the Respondent provides no proof that “tender” means dating, indicates dating, and even calls in your thoughts dating but alternatively defines an feature through which many people on internet dating sites may determine by themselves. The Complainant records that the Respondent will not provide a conclusion as to why it just registered a domain title which can be a phonetic comparable and typical misspelling associated with Complainant’s trademark as opposed to register other characteristics of people, incorporating that “tender” is certainly not generic for the dating site and that users will be almost certainly going to seek out “date”, “dating” or similar terms instead of “tender”.