WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Match Group, LLC v. Thomas Ticky

Case No. D2020-2214

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Match Group, LLC, United States of America, represented internally.

The Respondent is Thomas Ticky, Turkey.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <tinderstalk.com> is registered with Nics Telekomunikasyon A.S. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 21, 2020. On August 24, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 29, 2020, 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 Registrar also indicated that the language of the Registration Agreement was Turkish. The Center sent an email communication in English and Turkish, to the Complainant on August 31, 2020, inviting the Complainant to provide sufficient evidence of an agreement between the Parties for English to be the language of the proceeding, a Complaint translated into Turkish, or a request for English to be the language of the proceeding. The Complainant filed a request for English to be the language of the proceeding on September 3, 2020. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.

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, in Turkish and in English, of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 8, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 28, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 29, 2020.

The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on October 5, 2020. 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 a legal entity with its registered seat in the United States of America. It provides internationally known and popular online dating and matchmaking services.

The Complainant is the owner of the trademark TINDER, which is registered in a large number of jurisdictions. For instance, the Complainant is the owner of the European Union Trade Mark Registration No. 012278396 (registered on March 31, 2014, Annex 4 to the Complaint). The trademark provides protection for various online dating related goods and services as covered in classes 9, 42, and 45.

The Complainant provides its online dating and matchmaking services since 2012 particularly via its official website at “www.tinder.com” and its TINDER mobile application.

The Respondent is an individual potentially residing in Turkey, as per the registrant details of the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name was registered on February 19, 2019.

The screenshots, as provided by the Complainant, show that the disputed domain name resolved to a website in the English language, which displayed photographs of men and women allegedly taken from the Complainant’s website or mobile app, expressly referring to the TINDER online dating services provided by the Complainant.

At the date of the Decision, the disputed domain name does no longer resolve to an active website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its TINDER trademark.

Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It is rather argued that the disputed domain name falsely suggests that there is some official or authorized link between the Complainant and the Respondent.

Finally, it is argued that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant particularly argues that the Respondent must have been well aware of the Complainant’s TINDER trademark, when registering and using the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1. Language of the Proceeding

The Panel determines in accordance with the Complainant’s request and the Rules, paragraph 11(a), that the language of the administrative proceeding shall be English.

Although the language of the Registration Agreement is Turkish, the Panel finds that it would be inappropriate, given the circumstances of this case, to conduct the proceeding in Turkish and request a Turkish translation of the Complaint while the Respondent has failed to raise any objection or even to respond to the Complaint or respond to the Center’s communication about the language of the proceeding, even though communicated in Turkish and in English. The Panel notes that the Respondent was given the opportunity to respond in Turkish and that this opportunity remained unused by the Respondent.

Bearing also in mind that the disputed domain name resolved to a website in English language (Annex 6 to the Complaint), the Panel is convinced that the Respondent will not be prejudiced by a Decision being rendered in English.

6.2. Substantive Issues

According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied:

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

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

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

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant bears the burden of proving that all these requirements are fulfilled, even if the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions. Stanworth Development Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2007-1228.

However, concerning the uncontested information provided by the Complainant, the Panel may, where relevant, accept the provided reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint as true. See, section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the consensus views stated therein.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant has registered trademark rights in the mark TINDER by virtue of a large number of trademark registrations worldwide.

The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered TINDER trademark, as it fully incorporates the Complainant’s trademark. As stated at section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms would generally not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The mere addition of the term “stalk” does not, in view of the Panel, serve to avoid a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s TINDER trademark.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel further finds that the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

While the burden of proof on this element remains with the Complainant, previous UDRP panels have recognized that this would result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, in particular as the evidence in this regard is often primarily within the knowledge of the Respondent. Therefore, the Panel agrees with prior UDRP panels that the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case before the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to meet the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied this requirement, while the Respondent has failed to file any evidence or make any argument to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name according to the Policy, paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and 4(c).

In its Complaint, the Complainant has provided uncontested prima facie evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to use the Complainant’s TINDER trademark in a confusingly similar way within the disputed domain name.

There is also no indication in the current record that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. In the absence of a response, the Respondent has additionally failed to demonstrate any of the other non-exclusive circumstances evidencing rights or legitimate interests under the Policy, paragraph 4(c) or other evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

As a conclusion, the Panel finds that the Complainant has also satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

In the Panel’s view, the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The Panel is convinced that the Respondent must have had the Complainant’s trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name.

It even appears that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name solely for the purpose of creating an association with the Complainant and its worldwide known online dating and matchmaking services.

After having reviewed the Complainant’s screenshots of the website linked to the disputed domain name (Annex 6 to the Complaint), the Panel is convinced that the Respondent has intentionally registered the disputed domain name in order to generate traffic to its own website. The Panel notes that the Respondent has not published any visible disclaimer on the website linked to the disputed domain name to explain that there is no existing relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant. Quite the opposite, the explicit references to the Complainant’s online dating services and its TINDER trademark are in view of the Panel sufficient evidence that the Respondent intentionally tries to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s TINDER trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website. All in all, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent is trying to misrepresent itself as the trademark owner.

The fact that the disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website does not change the Panel’s findings in this respect.

The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith and that the Complainant has also satisfied the third element of the Policy, namely, paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 <tinderstalk.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Kaya Köklü
Sole Panelist
Date: October 14, 2020