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

Alternative Dispute Resolution Proceeding

Accelerated Proceeding

Case No. DSE2018-0033

1. Petitioner

The Petitioner is Match Group, LLC ofUnited States of America, internally represented.

2. Domain Holder

The Domain Holder is PRQ Registry, PeRiQuio holding of Sweden.

3. Domain Name and Background

This Alternative Dispute Resolution proceeding relates to the Domain Name <swipebuster.se>.

The Petition was filed under the Terms and Conditions of registration (the “.se Policy”) and the Instructions governing Alternative Dispute Resolution proceeding for domain names in the top-level domain .se (the “.se Rules”). The Petition was filed on May 19, 2018 and an amended Petition was filed on May 25, 2018.

The Petitioner elects to have the dispute decided by one arbitrator and to have the dispute decided as an Accelerated Proceeding if the Domain Holder does not respond to the Petition.

The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (“the Center”) verified that the Petition satisfied the formal requirements of the .se Policy and the .se Rules. In accordance with Section 13 of the .se Rules, the Center formally notified the Domain Holder of the Petition on June 1, 2018. The Domain Holder did not submit any response and, accordingly, the Center notified the Domain Holder’s default on July 2, 2018.

The Center appointed Jon Dal as the sole Arbitrator in this matter on July 18, 2018. The Arbitrator has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with Section 1 of the .se Rules.

4. Claim

The Petitioner claims that the Domain Name shall be transferred to the Petitioner.

The Domain Holder did not submit any response.

5. The Parties’ Contentions

A. The Petitioner

A1. The Domain Name is identical or similar to a name which is legally binding in Sweden and to which the Petitioner can prove its rights

The Petitioner and its affiliates provide a number of different online dating and matchmaking services, including the well‐known TINDER website and mobile application. Since at least as early as 2013, the Petitioner has used the unique designation SWIPE as a service mark and trade name for its online and mobile application products. The Petitioner’s trademark rights are evidenced, in part, by European Union (EU) Trademark Registration No. 014900310 for SWIPE, filed on April 23, 2015 and registered on December 8, 2015. The Petitioner also owns other SWIPE and TINDER‐related registrations in the EU.

The Petitioner has the exclusive right to use the referenced designations in commerce on or in connection with the goods and services covered by these registrations.

The Tinder website at “www.gotinder.com” allows users to, among other things, interact with the Tinder online‐matchmaking service or download the Tinder mobile application. The Tinder mobile application famously allows users to discover potential matches using the SWIPE interface. The Tinder mobile application and the SWIPE mark are well-known worldwide, and the application – bearing the TINDER mark and design logo – has more than 3 million paid subscribers.

As a result of the Petitioner’s extensive marketing efforts and continuous use of the SWIPE mark since 2013, the Petitioner has developed substantial rights and goodwill in the SWIPE mark, and the public has come to associate the SWIPE mark with the Petitioner and the Tinder mobile application.

The Domain Name, <swipebuster.se> incorporates the SWIPE mark in its entirety and merely ads the

generic word “buster.” Therefore, on its face the Domain Name is virtually identical or, at worst, confusingly similar to the SWIPE mark. It is also clear from the Domain Holder’s offered services and its use of the word “buster” in the Domain Name that the Domain Name is intended to relate – in a detrimental manner – directly to the Petitioner and the Tinder mobile application. Accordingly, there can be no doubt that the Domain Name is at least confusingly similar.

A2. The Domain Name has been registered or used in bad faith

The Domain Holder registered the Domain Name with actual knowledge of the Petitioner’s trademark rights. In two previous Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy UDRP proceedings, panels ordered that <swipebuster.com> and <tinderbuster.com> be transferred to the Petitioner’s predecessor, Tinder,Inc. While the registrant of the Domain Name is different from the respondent in the UDRP proceedings, the Petitioner believes that it is ultimately owned by the same individual. The content on the <swipebuster.se> website is the same as the content on the previous <swipebuster.com> website.

The Domain Holder also uses the TINDER trademark within the website content and explicitly references the Petitioner’s services. The Domain Holder intends to trade off of the Petitioner’s well‐known services and makes use of its SWIPE and TINDER marks in their entirety throughout its website. Thus, the Domain Holder is utilizing the Petitioner’s good reputation, market position, and characteristic features of the Tinder mobile application to attract traffic and increase its revenue.

A3. The Domain Holder has no rights or justified interest in the Domain Name

In order to have rights or justified interest in the Domain Name, the Domain Holder must have been using it for a bona fide purpose prior to being notified of a dispute, must have rights in the Domain Name, it must be older than the Petitioner’s Tinder brand, or it must be used according to its linguistic meaning. None of these are true. In fact, the Domain Holder registered the Domain Name after receiving actual notice of two other UDRP proceedings with respect to very similar domain names being used for the same purpose. The Petitioner owns trademark registrations for the SWIPE and TINDER marks, and the Domain Holder is not known by either. Thus, the Petitioner is entitled to exclusive use of these marks.

The Domain Holder is not affiliated with the Petitioner, and the Petitioner has not given the Domain Holder permission to use its marks. The Domain Holder has not been using the Domain Name in connection with a “bona fide” offering of goods or services that do not infringe the Petitioner’s rights. Like its prior websites, the Domain Holder charges people a fee to “bust” Tinder users by performing targeted searches for specific Tinder users by using their personal information. The Domain Holder has never made any legitimate non‐commercial or fair use of the Domain Name. The Domain Holder registered the Domain Name after being notified of the Petitioner’s dispute over its prior domain names, and immediately began using it for the same commercial use as those domain names.

A4. Evidence

The Petitioner invokes as evidence, i.a., certificates of EU trademark registration for SWIPE and TINDER, screenshot from “www.swipebuster.se” etc.

B. Domain Holder

The Domain Holder did not submit any response.

6. Discussion and Findings

A domain name may be transferred to the party requesting dispute resolution proceedings if the following three conditions are fulfilled:

1. The domain name is identical or similar to a trademark (or other right) which is legally binding in Sweden and to which the party requesting dispute resolution can prove its rights, and

2. The domain name has been registered or used in bad faith, and

3. The domain holder has no rights or justified interest in the domain name.

All three conditions must be met in order for the party requesting dispute resolution to succeed with a claim for transfer of the domain name.

A. The Domain Name is identical or similar to a trademark which is legally binding in Sweden and to which the Petitioner can prove its rights

The Petitioner is the owner of EU Trademark registration for SWIPE (word). The Domain Name consists of “swipe” and “buster”. SWIPE is a registered trademark of the Petitioner and therefore, in this context, the distinctive part of the Domain Name. The Arbitrator finds the Domain Name to be similar to the Petitioner’s trademark SWIPE.

B. The Domain Name has been registered or used in bad faith

Based on the record, the Arbitrator finds the Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith.

C. The domain holder has no rights or justified interest in the domain name.

Based on the record, the Arbitrator finds the Domain Holder has no rights or justified interests in the Domain Name.

7. Decision

The Domain Name <swipebuster.se> shall be transferred to the Petitioner.

Jon Dal
Date: July 19, 2018

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/