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

Match.com, LLC v. Private Registration / Kim Min Su

Case No. D2017-1509

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Match.com, LLC of Dallas, Texas, United States of America ("United States" or "USA"), represented by Locke Lord LLP, USA.

The Respondent is Private Registration of Denver, Colorado, USA / Kim Min Su of Daegu, Republic of Korea.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <tinderplus.com> is registered with DropCatch.com 649 LLC (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on August 3, 2017. On August 3, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 3, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 7, 2017 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on the same day.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 August 21, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 10, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on September 11, 2017.

The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on September 22, 2017. 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, through its wholly owned business Tinder, Inc., provides online dating services under the names and trademarks TINDER and TINDER PLUS, the latter name designating a premium service attracting a monthly fee.

Tinder, Inc. is the owner of trademark registrations including the following:

- United States trademark number 4,479,131 for TINDER registered on February 4, 2014 in Class 9

- United States trademark number 4,907,511 for TINDER PLUS registered on March 1, 2016 in Class 9

The disputed domain name was created on March 25, 2016.

The Complainant has submitted evidence by way of screen shots that on July 27, 2017 the disputed domain name resolved to a website offering links to services including online dating.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant states that it has used the mark TINDER in commerce since August 2012 and the mark TINDER PLUS since March 2015. It submits that it spends substantial sums each year in promoting its online dating services under these marks and provides evidence that the marks are widely known in commerce.

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is effectively identical to its trademark TINDER PLUS.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant denies that it has any commercial relationship with the Respondent or that it has ever authorized the Respondent to use its TINDER or TINDER PLUS marks. The Complainant denies that the Respondent has commonly been known by the disputed domain name or that it is making either bona fide commercial use or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the Respondent must have known of the Complainant's trademarks when it registered the disputed domain name and that it has intentionally used the disputed domain name to misappropriate the Complainant's trademarks and to redirect Internet users to websites and services which compete with those of the Complainant. The Complainant also contends that the disputed domain name has been associated with "phishing" emails.

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

In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are:

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

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

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

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name is effectively identical to the TINDER PLUS trademark and the Panel therefore finds that that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

In the view of the Panel, the Complainant's contentions set out above give rise to a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not responded to the Complainant's claims, nor is the Panel aware of any other facts or circumstances that would point to any such rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent's part. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Having regard to the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name, the Panel readily infers that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in the knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks TINDER and TINDER PLUS and with the intention of taking unfair advantage of the goodwill in those trademarks. The Panel further finds that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name, which incorporates the Complainant's trademarks, in order misleadingly to divert Internet users to the websites and services of competitors of the Complainant. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith, specifically in the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

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 <tinderplus.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: September 26, 2017

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/