D. Registered and Found In Bad Faith. Paragraph 4(b) for the Policy provides four, non-exclusive, circumstances that
, if discovered because of the Panel to show up, will be proof of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
“(i) circumstances indicating which you have actually registered or perhaps you have actually acquired the website name mainly for the true purpose of selling, leasing, or elsewhere moving the website name enrollment towards the complainant who’s the master of the trademark or solution mark or even a competitor of this complainant, for valuable consideration more than your documented away from pocket expenses straight associated with the website name; or
(ii) you’ve got registered the domain name to be able to stop the owner associated with the trademark or solution mark from showing the mark in a domain that is corresponding, so long as you have got involved with a pattern of these conduct; or
(iii) you’ve got registered the website name primarily for the intended purpose of disrupting the business enterprise of the competitor; or
(iv) utilizing the domain title, you have got deliberately tried to attract, for commercial gain, online users to your site or other on the web location, by producing an odds of confusion using the complainant’s mark as to the supply, sponsorship, affiliation, or recommendation of one’s web site or location or of an item or solution in your site or location. ”
The Complainant’s core distribution on this subject is the fact that its TINDER mark is exceptionally 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 similarity that is confusing such mark as well as the term “tender” into the disputed website name to attract customers to its web site, efficiently a submission with regards to of paragraph 4(b)(iv) associated with the Policy. For this, the Complainant adds its breakthrough for the meta tags in the Respondent’s web site which, whilst not like the TINDER mark, target specific of its other trademarks or of their affiliates and reinforce the sense that the Respondent’s general motivation ended up being 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 its service that is dating and mention of the Complainant’s TINDER mark.
Allowing for the fact panels have regularly unearthed that the simple enrollment of a website name this is certainly confusingly comparable (particularly domain names comprising typographical variations) up to a famous or trademark that is widely-known an unaffiliated entity can by it self create a presumption of bad faith (see part 3.1.4 regarding the WIPO Overview 3.0) the Respondent faces one thing of an uphill fight in the outset of the subject in persuading the Panel of a so-called good faith inspiration. The next degree of the disputed domain name is nearly just like the Complainant’s mark both alphanumerically and phonetically. It really is confusingly just like the Complainant’s mark for a simple contrast. The Respondent acknowledges that the domain that is top-level. Singles” corresponds towards the section of trade for the Complainant and claims become involved with supplying comparable solutions. There isn’t any explanation to think that the Respondent could have been unacquainted with the Complainant or its legal rights within the TINDER mark at the purpose of enrollment associated with the disputed domain title. As a preliminary observation before looking at the detail regarding the Respondent’s submissions, the Panel records that the above mentioned facets by themselves point in the way of bad faith enrollment and employ.
The Respondent contends so it is using the expression “tender singles” in which the “tender” component describes the best partner or “single”, noting in its contentions so it is sensible to learn the 2nd and top-level associated with the disputed domain title together. Nevertheless, the Respondent chooses to produce the capitalized term “Tender” by itself in a sizable typeface towards the top of its web site, eschewing for that function the so-called descriptive “tender singles” expression. The Complainant effortlessly contends that this appears to look way too like its TINDER that is well-known trademark convenience. The Respondent’s solution is in fact that this is basically the logo design so it could not fit the chosen phrase “tender singles” on to the landing page of a mobile device that it has adopted and. The Respondent seeks to spell out that the logos on numerous internet sites try not to talk about the top-level for the website name, citing and also as examples. This position is unconvincing to the Panel. There isn’t any good reason why a logo design could n’t have showcased the complete so-called descriptive term, vertically or even horizontally, while the proven fact that it will not fortifies the impression that the TINDER mark will be targeted. There clearly was a substantive distinction between the example domain names cited by the Respondent plus the domain name that is disputed. In the Respondent’s own admission, the top-level domain in is completely needed to complete the descriptive expression on which it seeks to rely in its make an effort to distinguish this through the Complainant’s mark. Its lack within the prominent logo towards the top of the squeeze page, specially because of the capitalization of “Tender”, will not aim in the way of a great faith inspiration for the enrollment and employ of this disputed website name.
Finally, the Panel turns to your meta tags regarding the Respondent’s site. Despite having tried to put an assurance forward that its inspiration had been only to take advantage of a dictionary phrase unrelated into the TINDER mark, the Respondent is available to possess made usage of other trademarks into the coding of their internet site which target the Complainant and its particular affiliates, presumably so as to draw visitors to its site. The Respondent simply proposes to eliminate these, arguing that two of them include typical terms. It gives no description when it comes to presence associated with POF mark. It highlights so it would not utilize the TINDER mark this kind of meta data. The consequence of this Complainant’s situation but is the fact that the Respondent would not have to do therefore just because a confusingly comparable variant of these mark already features when you look at the disputed website name and contains been marketed earnestly. The Respondent’s instance will not may actually have legitimate solution on this matter plus in the Panel’s regard this is the indicator which tips many highly in direction of enrollment and employ in bad faith.
The Panel notes that the Respondent claims to own invested a great deal of cash on marketing the internet site linked to the disputed website name. It is not one thing by itself which points in direction of a faith motivation that is good. A significant investment in marketing an online site can neither cure the fact that the website name which tips to it really is confusingly much like a well-known trademark nor does it offer a justification or description for the targeting of associated 3rd 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 Website Name Hijacking. Because of the Panel’s dedication that the Complainant succeeds on all three aspects of the insurance policy
, the Panel rejects the Respondent’s submission that the issue was brought in bad faith and so makes no finding of Reverse website Name Hijacking.
7. Decision
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