WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL CHOICE

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 Website 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. On March 7, 2018, the middle sent by e-mail towards the Registrar a ask for registrar verification associated with the disputed website name. On March 8, 2018, the Registrar sent by email 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 middle 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 issue pleased the formal demands for the Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the principles for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and also the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform website name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

Prior to the principles, paragraphs 2 and 4, the guts formally notified the Respondent associated with the Complaint, together with procedures commenced on March 16, 2018. Relative to the principles, paragraph 5, the deadline for reaction ended up being April 5, 2018. The reaction ended up being filed using the focus on April 5, 2018. The Respondent filed a health health supplement to its reaction on April 5, 2018. 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 precisely constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of recognition and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as needed by the guts to make certain conformity because of the https://besthookupwebsites.net/twoo-review/ 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 service under its TINDER trademarks.

The Complainant partcipates in significant advertising tasks of those services 12 months on year. The Complainant has and runs the web sites “www. Gotinder.com” and “www. Tinder.com” to facilitate its solutions. On the “Tinder” branded users that are website produce individual records, search and view user pages, donate 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 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 subscribed trademarks both for figurative and term markings in respect regarding the TINDER mark including, as an example, usa registered trademark no. 4479131 for the word mark TINDER, registered on February 4, 2014 in worldwide course 9 (mobile computer programs) and United States registered trademark no. 4976225 for the term mark TINDER, registered on June 14, 2016 in international course 45 ( Internet-based networking that is social introduction and online dating services).

The domain that is disputed is 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 term “Tender” in prominent red letters, underneath which will be stated in smaller typeface “Free internet dating for tender, kind and loving singles” together by having a drop down menu for an individual to choose their sex and a “Join now” key.

In line with the screenshots generated by the Respondent from the Google AdWords account, it seems to possess utilized the text that is following its adverts (even though the Panel records that the most effective type of 1st ad was obscured):

5. Events’ Contentions. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain title is identical or confusingly just like a trademark for which it owns liberties;

A. Complainant

That the Respondent doesn’t have liberties or genuine passions into the disputed domain title; and therefore 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 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 usually do not 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 relate genuinely to the Complainant’s services and strengthens the observed link with the Complainant.

The Complainant records that the Respondent isn’t associated with or endorsed because of the Complainant and has now never ever been licensed or authorized to make use of any one 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) associated with the Policy nor some other proven fact that may establish 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 connection with 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 up to a questionable web site where users are confronted by multiple sources 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 known if the domain that is disputed 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 therefore in misappropriating the Complainant’s marks the Respondent is leveraging the Complainant’s goodwill and appeal because of its very very own advantage and simultaneously diminishing the worth of this 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 domain name ended up being registered. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent promises to misappropriate the TINDER mark to deceive consumers and draw an incorrect relationship, considering that the internet site from the disputed domain 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 recommendation associated with disputed website name whereby such users will think they’ve been coping with the Complainant or that the disputed domain title is affiliated to or endorsed by the Complainant. The Complainant adds that such actions are made knowingly and deceitfully because of the Respondent.

The Complainant asserts that users looking for “tender” and dating would become more prone to do this centered 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 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 achieve this if it would not make far more in exchange. The Complainant additionally asks the Panel to dismiss the Respondent’s claim regarding its use and registration of other names of domain since that is unsupported by proof.

The Complainant submits that the proven fact that “tender” may have a dictionary meaning doesn’t stick it within a safe-harbor which can be resistant through the Policy, noting that the Respondent will not 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 utilize 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 sometimes even calls in your thoughts dating but alternatively defines a feature through which a lot of people on internet dating sites may recognize on their own. The Complainant records that the Respondent does not offer a description as to the reasons it just registered a domain title which will be a phonetic comparable and common misspelling associated with the 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 will be almost certainly going to seek out “date”, “dating” or similar terms instead of “tender”.