, if discovered because of the Panel to be there, will be proof of the enrollment and make use of 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 so that you can stop the owner for the trademark or solution mark from showing the mark in a matching domain title, so long as you’ve got involved with a pattern of these conduct; or
(iii) you have got registered the domain name primarily for the intended purpose of disrupting the business enterprise of a competitor; or
(iv) using the website name, you’ve got deliberately tried to attract, for commercial gain, online users to your internet website or other on the web location, by producing a probability of confusion utilizing the complainant’s mark regarding the supply, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of one’s site or location or of something or solution on the internet site or location. ”
The Complainant’s core distribution on hookup sites apps this subject is the fact that its TINDER mark is extremely well-known in the area of online dating services in a way that
The Respondent will need to have understood from it and designed to use the confusing similarity between such mark while the term “tender” into the disputed domain title to attract customers to its site, efficiently a distribution with regards to of paragraph 4(b)(iv) regarding the Policy. For this, the Complainant adds its development associated with meta data from the Respondent’s internet site which, whilst not such as the TINDER mark, target specific of the other trademarks or of its affiliates and reinforce the sense that the Respondent’s motivation that is overall to find more traffic from confusion with such trademarks. The Respondent’s situation is basically reliant on its assertion it selected the definition of “tender singles” as a description of the dating solution and without mention of the Complainant’s TINDER mark.
Bearing in mind the truth that panels have regularly discovered that the simple registration of a website name this is certainly confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typographical variations) up to a famous or trademark that is widely-known an unaffiliated entity can by it self produce a presumption of bad faith (see section 3.1.4 regarding the WIPO Overview 3.0) the Respondent faces one thing of an uphill challenge in the outset of the subject in persuading the Panel of an so-called good faith inspiration. The 2nd degree of the disputed website name is very nearly just like the Complainant’s mark both alphanumerically and phonetically. It really is confusingly just like the Complainant’s mark on a comparison that is straightforward. The Respondent acknowledges that the top-level domain “. Singles” corresponds towards the part of trade of this Complainant and claims become involved in supplying comparable solutions. There’s absolutely no explanation to think that the Respondent might have been unacquainted with the Complainant or its legal rights into the TINDER mark in the point of enrollment associated with the disputed website name. The Panel notes that the above factors on their own point in the direction of bad faith registration and use as an initial observation before turning to the detail of the Respondent’s submissions.
The Respondent contends so it is using the expression “tender singles” for which the “tender” component describes the perfect partner or “single”, noting with its contentions so it is sensible to read through the 2nd and top-level of this disputed domain title together. But, the Respondent chooses to show the capitalized term “Tender” by itself in a big typeface towards the top of its site, eschewing for that function the so-called descriptive “tender singles” expression. The Complainant effortlessly contends that this generally seems to look way too like its TINDER that is well-known trademark convenience. The Respondent’s solution is in fact that this is actually the logo design so it has used and that it may not fit the selected expression “tender singles” to the website landing page of the smart phone. The Respondent seeks to describe that the logos on numerous sites usually do not talk about the top-level associated with the website name, citing and also as examples. To your Panel, this place is unconvincing. There’s no reasons why a logo design could not need showcased the complete so-called term that is descriptive vertically if not horizontally, as well as the proven fact that it generally does not fortifies the impression that the TINDER mark has been targeted. There is certainly a substantive distinction between the example names of domain cited by the Respondent while the domain name that is disputed. In the Respondent’s very own admission, the top-level domain in is completely expected to complete the descriptive expression on which it seeks to depend in its try to differentiate this through the Complainant’s mark. Its lack when you look at the prominent logo design at the top of the squeeze page, specially provided the capitalization of “Tender”, doesn’t part of the way of an excellent faith inspiration for the registration and make use of for the disputed website name.
Finally, the Panel turns to your meta data in the Respondent’s web site. Despite having tried to put an assurance forward that its inspiration had been just to take advantage of a dictionary phrase unrelated into the TINDER mark, the Respondent is available to possess made use of other trademarks within the coding of its internet site which target the Complainant and its particular affiliates, presumably so as to draw visitors to its web site. The Respondent simply provides to eliminate these, arguing that two of them include typical terms. No explanation is offered by it for the existence associated with the POF mark. It highlights so it would not utilize the TINDER mark such meta tags. The result of this Complainant’s instance but is the fact that the Respondent didn’t should do therefore just because a confusingly comparable variation of these mark already features when you look at the disputed domain title and has now been promoted earnestly. The Respondent’s instance doesn’t may actually have answer that is credible this matter plus in the Panel’s regard this may be the indicator which tips many highly in direction of enrollment and use in bad faith.
The Panel notes that the Respondent claims to own invested a great deal of cash on marketing the web site linked to 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 a web page can neither cure the truth that the website name which points to it really is confusingly much like a well-known trademark nor does it offer a reason or description for the targeting of relevant 3rd party trademarks into the rule of these web 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. Because of 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 issue was introduced bad faith and therefore makes no finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
The Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant for the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the rules.
Andrew D. S. Lothian Sole Panelist Date: Might 11, 2018