1. The Events
The Complainant is Match Group, LLC of Dallas, Texas, united states (“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 had been 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 to your Center its verification reaction confirming that the Respondent is detailed since the registrant and supplying the contact information. As a result up to a notification because of the Center that the Complaint ended up being administratively lacking, the Complainant filed an amendment into the issue 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 problem alongside the amended issue pleased the formal requirements associated with Uniform website name 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).
Relative to the guidelines, paragraphs 2 and 4, the middle formally notified the Respondent associated with the Complaint, and also the procedures commenced on March 16, 2018. According to the guidelines, paragraph 5, the deadline for reaction had been April 5, 2018. The Response ended up being filed with all the focus on 5, 2018 april. The Respondent filed a health supplement to its reaction on April 5, 2018. 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 while the 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 needed because of the guts to make certain conformity aided by the 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 service under its TINDER trademarks.
The Complainant partcipates in significant advertising tasks of the solutions 12 months on year. The Complainant has and runs those sites “www. Gotinder.com” and “www. Tinder.com” to facilitate its services. Regarding the “Tinder” branded site users may produce individual reports, 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 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.
A variety is held by the Complainant of authorized trademarks both for figurative and term markings in respect regarding the 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 social network, introduction and online dating services).
The disputed domain name was made on March 2, 2016. The Respondent describes it is a startup company operating a dating company. The web site linked to 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, type and loving singles” together by having a fall down menu for the consumer 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 utilized the following text on its ads (even though the Panel records that the most effective type of the very first ad might have been obscured):
5. Events’ Contentions. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain title is identical or confusingly just like a trademark by which it has liberties;
That the Respondent does not have any liberties or genuine passions when you look at the domain that is disputed; and that the disputed domain title ended up being registered and it is getting used in bad faith.
The Complainant states that the disputed domain title is practically exactly the same as its TINDER mark but also for a small misspelling and ended up being registered under circumstances constituting typo-squatting. The Complainant adds that while panels generally try not to think about the top-level domain whenever assessing confusing similarity, the Respondent’s use 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 is certainly not associated with or endorsed by the Complainant and contains never ever been certified or authorized to make use of any one of its authorized markings, nor any confusingly comparable designation, as an element of a website name. The Complainant submits that the Respondent cannot demonstrate some of the circumstances lay out in paragraph 4(c) regarding the Policy nor some other undeniable fact that may establish liberties or a legitimate desire for the domain name that is disputed. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not yet utilized the disputed website name in reference to a bona fide offering of products or solutions since it is willfully exploiting the Complainant’s appeal and trading on its goodwill, noting that individuals are lured up to a dubious web site where users are confronted by multiple sources to dating and matchmaking solutions that are built to confusingly claim that the Respondent could be the Complainant or endorsed or affiliated therewith. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent have not become popularly known as “tender”, nor ended up being it therefore understood once the disputed website name was 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 very own benefit and simultaneously diminishing the worth 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 therefore its formal domain ended up being registered on June 22, 2012, well before the domain that is disputed had been registered. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent promises to misappropriate the TINDER mark to deceive customers and draw a poor relationship, given that the site linked to the disputed domain title prominently features the “Tender” designation along side ads 100% free dating that is online. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent deliberately tries to attract online users via confusion created utilizing the Complainant’s TINDER mark regarding the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement for the disputed website name whereby such users will think they truly are coping with the Complainant or that the disputed domain title is affiliated to or endorsed by the Complainant. The Complainant adds that such actions have already been made knowingly and deceitfully by the Respondent.
The Complainant asserts that users looking for “tender” and dating would become more prone to achieve this according to 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 that is among the many so it has centered on a dictionary term often found in dating pages. The Complainant adds that the Respondent will never achieve this if it would not make a lot more in exchange. The Complainant additionally asks the Panel to overlook the Respondent’s claim regarding its registration and employ of other names of domain as that is unsupported by proof.
The Complainant submits that the known undeniable fact that “tender” may have a dictionary meaning will not put it inside a safe-harbor which will be resistant through the Policy, noting that the Respondent will not argue that the Complainant’s trademark is generic. The Complainant https://besthookupwebsites.net/fitness-singles-review/ asserts that while an event may legitimately register a domain title composed of a word that is dictionary utilize the site for content highly relevant to this is of this term, the Respondent provides no proof that “tender” means dating, shows dating, and on occasion even calls in your thoughts dating but alternatively describes a feature through which a lot of people on internet dating sites may determine on their own. The Complainant records that the Respondent does not provide a conclusion as to the reasons 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 people, incorporating that “tender” is certainly not generic for a dating site and that users could be very likely to seek out “date”, “dating” or similar terms instead of “tender”.