, if found because of the Panel to be there, will probably be proof of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
“(i) circumstances showing you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or that you have registered or
(ii) you have got registered the website name to be able to stop the owner regarding the trademark or solution mark from showing the mark in a matching domain title, provided you have got involved with a pattern of these conduct; or
(iii) you have got registered the website name primarily for the true purpose of disrupting the company of the competitor; or
(iv) using the domain title, you’ve got deliberately tried to attract, for commercial gain, internet surfers to your internet website or any other on the web location, by producing a probability of confusion using the complainant’s mark regarding the supply, sponsorship, affiliation, or recommendation of one’s site or location or of an item or solution on your own site or location. ”
The Complainant’s core distribution on this subject is its TINDER mark is extremely well-known in the field of online dating services in a way that
The Respondent should have understood from it and designed to use the similarity that is confusing such mark as well as the term “tender” within the disputed website name to attract customers to its web site, efficiently a distribution in terms of paragraph 4(b)(iv) associated with the Policy. For this, the Complainant adds its finding associated with meta tags from the Respondent’s site which, whilst not such as the TINDER mark, target specific of their other trademarks or of its affiliates and reinforce the sense that the Respondent’s motivation that is overall to get extra traffic from confusion with such trademarks. The Respondent’s instance is basically reliant on its assertion so it selected the definition how to message someone on okcupid of “tender singles” as a description of its dating solution and without mention of the Complainant’s TINDER mark.
Allowing for the truth that panels have regularly unearthed that the simple enrollment of a website name that is confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typographical variations) to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by it self produce a presumption of bad faith (see area 3.1.4 associated with the WIPO Overview 3.0) the Respondent faces one thing of an uphill battle in the outset of this subject in persuading the Panel of an so-called faith motivation that is good. The next standard of the disputed domain title is very nearly just like the Complainant’s mark both alphanumerically and phonetically. It really is confusingly like the Complainant’s mark for a simple contrast. The Respondent acknowledges that the domain that is top-level. Singles” corresponds to your section of trade associated with the Complainant and claims become involved with supplying comparable solutions. There isn’t any explanation to trust that the Respondent might have been unacquainted with the Complainant or its liberties within the TINDER mark in the idea of enrollment of this domain name that is disputed. As a preliminary observation before looking at the information for the Respondent’s submissions, the Panel notes that the aforementioned facets by themselves part of the way of bad faith registration and make use of.
The Respondent contends so it is using the phrase “tender singles” by which the “tender” component describes the best partner or “single”, noting in its contentions it is practical to see the next and top-level for the disputed domain title together. Nevertheless, the Respondent chooses to produce the capitalized term “Tender” by itself in a big typeface near the top of its site, eschewing for that function the so-called descriptive “tender singles phrase that is. The Complainant effortlessly argues that this appears to look much too like its well-known TINDER trademark for convenience. The Respondent’s solution is in fact that this is actually the logo design so it has used and therefore it may unfit the selected expression “tender singles” onto the squeeze page of the mobile device. The Respondent seeks to describe that the logos on numerous sites don’t talk about the top-level associated with the domain title, citing and also as examples. This position is unconvincing to the Panel. There is absolutely no good reason why a logo design could n’t have showcased the complete so-called descriptive term, vertically if you don’t horizontally, plus the proven fact that it doesn’t fortifies the impression that the TINDER mark will be targeted. There clearly was a substantive distinction between the example names of domain cited by the Respondent in addition to domain name that is disputed. The top-level domain in is absolutely required to complete the descriptive phrase on which it seeks to rely in its attempt to distinguish this from the Complainant’s mark on the Respondent’s own admission. Its lack within the prominent logo design at the top of the squeeze page, specially because of the capitalization of “Tender”, doesn’t part of the way of an excellent faith motivation when it comes to registration and make use of of the domain name that is disputed.
Finally, the Panel turns into the meta tags from the Respondent’s site. Despite having tried to put an assurance forward that its inspiration ended up being in order to take advantage of a dictionary phrase unrelated into the TINDER mark, the Respondent is located to own made utilization of other trademarks into the coding of the site which target the Complainant and its particular affiliates, presumably so that they can draw visitors to its site. The Respondent simply proposes to eliminate these, arguing that two of them include typical terms. It gives no description for the existence regarding the POF mark. It highlights so it failed to utilize the TINDER mark this kind of meta tags. The consequence associated with Complainant’s situation nonetheless is the Respondent failed to have to do therefore just because a confusingly comparable variation of these mark currently features within the domain that is disputed and contains been promoted earnestly. The Respondent’s situation will not seem to have legitimate response on this matter plus in the Panel’s treat this may be the indicator which tips many highly in direction of enrollment and make use of in bad faith.
The Panel notes that the Respondent claims to own invested a lot of cash on advertising the internet site from the disputed domain title. This is simply not one thing by itself which points in direction of good faith inspiration. An investment that is substantial marketing an internet site can neither cure the fact that the domain title which tips to it’s confusingly comparable to a well-known trademark nor does it provide a reason or description for the targeting of relevant alternative party trademarks within the rule of these site.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has met the test under the third element of the Policy and that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith in all of these circumstances.
E. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. Provided the Panel’s dedication that the Complainant succeeds on all three components of the insurance policy
, the Panel rejects the Respondent’s submission that the grievance was introduced bad faith and therefore makes no finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
When it comes to foregoing reasons, according to paragraphs 4(i) regarding the Policy and 15 associated with the Rules, the Panel requests that the disputed domain name be used in the Complainant.
Andrew D. S. Lothian Sole Panelist Date: Might 11, 2018