About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Tinder, Inc. v. Raimundo Rodriguez Huter

Case No. D2016-0726

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Tinder, Inc. of Dallas, Texas, United States of America, represented by Locke Lord LLP, United States of America.

The Respondent is Raimundo Rodriguez Huter of Mexico City, Distrito Federal, Mexico.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <tinderbuster.com> is registered with Instra Corporation Pty Ltd. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 13, 2016. On April 13, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 14, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 15, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 5, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 6, 2016.

The Center appointed Pablo A. Palazzi as the sole panelist in this matter on May 18, 2016. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is in the business of providing online dating services since the year 2012. The Complainant operates a website located at “www.gotinder.com”. The website allows users to download the Tinder mobile application. The app provides dating services allowing a user to discover potential candidates within a certain distance of the user. According to the Complaint, the application has been downloaded 100 million times with sixty percent of Tinder users coming from outside North America.

The Complainant is the owner of the trademark TINDER (U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,479,131, filed August 2, 2012 and registered on February 4, 2014).

The disputed domain name was created on September 10, 2015.

At the time of filing the Complaint, the Respondent is using the disputed domain mane to offer a service consisting of charging people a fee to perform targeted searches for specific Tinder users by using their personal information.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name plainly incorporates the TINDER trademark in its entirety therefore the disputed domain name is virtually identical or confusingly similar to the trademark.

The Complainant states that it is also clear from the Respondent’s offered services and his use of the word “buster” in the disputed domain name that the disputed domain name is intended to relate in a detrimental manner to Tinder.

With respect to the lack of rights and legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name, the Complainant states that:

- Tinder is not affiliated with the Respondent.

- The Respondent cannot demonstrate any of the circumstances identified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy and therefore has no rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name.

- The Respondent has not been using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

- Rather than making a bona fide use, the Respondent has opted for using the disputed domain name to leverage Tinder’s popularity and trade on Tinder’s goodwill to siphon ill-gotten gains from Tinder’s success.

- The disputed domain name charges people a fee to “bust” Tinder users by performing targeted searches for specific Tinder users by using their personal information. Aside from the impropriety of the Respondent’s financial gain at Tinder’s expense, the Respondent’s use of “buster” in the disputed domain name in conjunction with the TINDER trademark evokes a negative connotation that is harmful to the Complainant. According to the Complaint, “busting” someone for an activity suggests that what the busted party is being “busted” for is something the person should not be doing.

- The Respondent cannot demonstrate that it has been using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services: the facts reveal that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name has been primarily to deceive consumers and misappropriate the goodwill of the TINDER trademark by luring consumers to the disputed domain name, which is used to improperly commercialize the Complainant’s content in violation of the Complainant’s Terms of Use.

- The Respondent cannot demonstrate a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

- The Complainant states that upon information and belief, the Respondent registered and has used, and intends to further use the disputed domain name, to mislead and funnel users and potential users of the Complainant services to the disputed domain name to facilitate the Respondent’s own commercial gain. According to the Complaint, such a use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent does not constitute a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the provisions of section 4(c)(iii) of the Policy.

- The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on September 10, 2015, several years after the Complainant’s registration of the TINDER trademark.

- The Respondent has made unfair use of the disputed domain name to improperly associate his website with the Complainant and drive traffic to the disputed domain name and ultimately generate his financial gain. In this respect, the Respondent leverages the Complainant’s goodwill and extreme popularity for his own commercial gain, and simultaneously diminishes and/or tarnishes the reputation and value of Tinder, Tinder’s dating services, and the Tinder App.

With respect to bad faith registration and use, the Complainant states that:

- The Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name has been with constructive and actual notice of Tinder’s exclusive right to the use of the TINDER trademark. The Complainant obtained its registration for the “TINDER” trademark on February 4, 2014, more than a year before the Respondent registered the disputed domain name.

- The Respondent’s bad faith is evidenced, in three ways: (i) the Respondent literally uses the entire TINDER trademark in the disputed domain name for a website that is directed at commercializing Tinder’s proprietary information; (ii) the Respondent provides services at the disputed domain name that are in violation of Tinder’s Terms of Use. Specifically, the Respondent’s unauthorized use of at least an Application Programming Interface (“API”), as well as any scraping, and/or any use, access, copying, and sharing of Tinder’s content is a direct violation of the Terms that govern access to Tinder’s website and the Tinder App; (iii) The Complainant sent the Respondent a cease and desist letter on April 1, 2016 for the disputed domain name. According to the Complaint, the Respondent did not comply with the Complainant’s demands, but rather demanded payment and changed the WhoIs information to another registrant.

- The inconsistent information provided to the Registrar by the Respondent suggests that the Respondent is attempting to mask himself from his infringing activities. Accordingly, the Respondent’s registration, use, and continued use of the disputed domain name was and is in bad faith.

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

The Complainant has the burden of proof in showing that each element within paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is present. These are as follows:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

Even when there is a respondent default, as it is the case here, the Complainant must establish and carry the burden of proof on each of the three elements identified above. The Panel proceeds to deal with each of these elements in turn.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

This element consists of two parts: first, does the Complainant have rights in a relevant trademark and, second, is the disputed domain name identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has sufficiently established trademark rights in the term “Tinder”. It is clear to the Panel that the disputed domain name, consisting of the Complainant’s trademark TINDER with the addition of the term “buster”, is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark TINDER.

For these reasons, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the second requirement the Complainant must prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy lists certain circumstances in which a respondent may have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. These are illustrative only and are not an exhaustive listing of the situations in which a respondent can show rights or legitimate interests in a domain name.

The onus of proving this requirement, like each element, falls on the Complainant. UDRP panels have recognized the difficulties inherent in proving a negative, however, especially in circumstances where much of the relevant information is in, or is likely to be in, the possession of the respondent. Accordingly, it is usually sufficient for a complainant to raise a prima facie case against the respondent under this head and the burden of production will shift to the respondent to rebut that prima facie case. See, e.g., paragraph 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”).

The Complainant states that it has not authorized the Respondent to use the disputed domain name and that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant. The Complainant has not licensed the Respondent to use its trademark. The disputed domain name is plainly not derived from the Respondent’s name. From the available record, the Respondent does not appear to hold any trademarks for the disputed domain name.

In these circumstances, the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the burden of production on the second element shifts to the Respondent. The Respondent is in default and has not provided any answer or justification for the registration of the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

With respect to bad faith registration, the Panel finds that the evidence shows that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registering the disputed domain name.

It is the view of the Panel that it is clear from the record that the Respondent was targeting the Complainant in registering the disputed domain name and creating the content that was addressed to Tinder users.

The Complainant has stated and the Respondent has not denied that at the time of filing this Complaint the disputed domain name charges people a fee to “bust” Tinder users by performing targeted searches for specific Tinder users by using their personal information. According to the Complaint, this creates a negative connotation that is harmful to the Complainant. The Panel agrees with the Complainant.

At the time of rendering this decision, the Panel visited the disputed domain and was able to check that the disputed domain mane is forwarding to the address “www.swipebuster.com” displaying the offer “Search within Tinder, packages begin at USD 4.99 it’s simple, this is how it works”. Then, the content of the disputed domain name lists the steps that a user has to follow to discover if someone is using the Tinder app. It requires to input name, gender and location of the person, and also the name, email and password of the person requesting the search. It also charges for this service.

The Panel is of the view that the unauthorized use of a trademark in the disputed domain name to perform the activities described above constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the present record supports a conclusion that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith, and that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is satisfied.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <tinderbuster.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Pablo A. Palazzi
Sole Panelist
Date: June 6, 2016

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/