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 using the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 7, 2018. On March 7, 2018, the middle sent by e-mail into the Registrar a ask for registrar verification associated with the disputed website name. On March 8, 2018, the Registrar sent by e-mail towards the Center its verification reaction confirming that the Respondent is detailed given that registrant and supplying the contact information. In reaction up to a notification by the middle that the Complaint ended up being 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 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 Domain title Dispute Resolution Policy (the Rules” that is“Supplemental).

According to the principles, paragraphs 2 and 4, the middle formally notified the Respondent regarding the Complaint, therefore the procedures commenced on March 16, 2018. Prior to the guidelines, paragraph 5, the deadline for reaction ended up being April 5, 2018. The reaction had been filed utilizing the focus on 5, 2018 april. 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 additionally the Respondent filed a supplemental filing on April 14, 2018.

The Center appointed Andrew D. S. Lothian while the panelist that is sole 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 by the Center to make certain conformity because of the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background. The Complainant has been doing the company of providing online social network, 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 on year year. The Complainant has and runs the internet sites “www. Gotinder.com” and “www. Tinder.com” to facilitate its solutions. Regarding the “Tinder” branded users that are website produce individual records, search and view user pages, play a role in community forums, and read helpful and informative articles in the official “Tinder” blog.

The Complainant reaches consumers worldwide via its popular “Tinder” dating and social media mobile applications for Android and iOS mobile platforms. The Android os variation has now 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 subscribed trademarks both for 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 class 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 media, introduction and online dating services).

The disputed domain name was made on March 2, 2016. The Respondent describes it is a startup company running a dating company. The web site from the disputed website name features the term “Tender” in prominent red letters, underneath that is stated in smaller typeface “Free online dating sites for tender, type and loving singles” together with a fall down menu for the consumer to pick their sex and a “Join now” key.

On the basis of the screenshots created by the Respondent from its Bing AdWords account, it seems to possess utilized the after text on its adverts (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 much like a trademark for which it has liberties;

A. Complainant

That the Respondent does not have any liberties or genuine passions into 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 ended up being 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 assessing confusing similarity, the Respondent’s utilization of the “. Singles” top-level domain shows that the disputed domain title is intended to connect with the Complainant’s solutions and strengthens the observed connection to the Complainant.

The Complainant records that the Respondent just isn’t connected to or endorsed because of the Complainant and has now never ever been certified or authorized to make use of any one of its registered 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) of this Policy nor any kind of undeniable fact that may establish legal rights or the best curiosity about the disputed website name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent have not used the disputed website name in experience of 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 met with numerous sources to dating and matchmaking solutions that are built 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 once the domain that is disputed had been registered. The Complainant adds that the Respondent are not able to demonstrate a legitimate noncommercial or reasonable use 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 for the Complainant, its marks and dating services.

The Complainant states it happens to be which consists of TINDER mark since as soon as August 2, 2012 and therefore its formal domain had been registered on June 22, 2012, well before the domain that is disputed 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 site linked to the disputed website name prominently features the “Tender” designation along side ads 100% free dating that is online. 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 regarding the disputed domain title whereby such users will think they’ve been working with the Complainant or that the disputed domain title is affiliated to or endorsed by the Complainant. The Complainant adds that such actions have now 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 it is way more plausible that the Respondent find the disputed domain name since it is confusingly comparable thereto. The Complainant submits so it owns based on a dictionary word sometimes https://besthookupwebsites.net/seeking-arrangement-review/ 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 in exchange. The Complainant additionally asks the Panel to dismiss the Respondent’s claim regarding its enrollment and make use of of other names of domain as that is unsupported by proof.

The Complainant submits that the proven fact that “tender” may have a dictionary meaning will not stick it inside a safe-harbor that is resistant through the Policy, noting that the Respondent will not argue that the Complainant’s trademark is generic. The Complainant asserts that while a celebration may legitimately register a website name composed of a word that is dictionary make use of the web site for content strongly related this is of this term, the Respondent provides no proof that “tender” means dating, shows dating, if not calls in your thoughts dating but alternatively defines an characteristic through which a lot of people on online dating sites may determine on their own. The Complainant records that the Respondent doesn’t provide a conclusion as to the reasons it just registered a domain title which can be a phonetic comparable and typical misspelling regarding the Complainant’s trademark as opposed to register other characteristics of people, incorporating that “tender” is certainly not generic for a dating internet site and that users will be almost certainly going to seek out “date”, “dating” or similar terms instead of “tender”.