Paragraph 4(c) for the Policy lists a few ways the Respondent may show liberties or genuine passions when you look at the domain name that is disputed

“Any associated with after circumstances, in specific but without limitation, if discovered because of the Panel become shown predicated on its evaluation of all proof presented, shall demonstrate your legal rights or genuine interests towards the website name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii):

(i) before any notice for your requirements associated with the dispute, your usage of, or demonstrable preparations to utilize, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain title relating to a bona fide offering of products or services; or

(ii) you (as a person, company, or other organization) have now been commonly understood by the website name, even although you have actually obtained no trademark or solution mark liberties; or

(iii) you are making a genuine noncommercial or reasonable utilization of the website name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or even to tarnish the trademark or solution mark at issue”.

The consensus of past choices underneath the Policy is the fact that a complainant might establish this element by simply making away a prima facie situation, perhaps perhaps maybe not rebutted because of the respondent,

That the respondent doesn’t have liberties or genuine passions in a domain name. In which the panel finds that the complainant has made down this kind of prima facie situation, the responsibility of manufacturing shifts towards the respondent to create forward proof of such legal rights or genuine interests.

The Panel is pleased that the Complainant has made out of the prima that is requisite situation centered on its submissions that the Respondent just isn’t associated with or endorsed because of the Complainant, is certainly not certified or authorized to utilize its subscribed markings, just isn’t popularly known as “tender” and it is utilizing the disputed website name to point to a dating site which could recommend to site site visitors that the Respondent is the Complainant or is affiliated therewith. Within these circumstances, the Panel turns into the Respondent’s submissions and proof to ascertain whether its instance can perform rebutting such prima facie situation.

Although the reaction is certainly not straight addressed to your conditions associated with the Policy, it really is clear to your Panel that the Respondent efficiently seeks to activate paragraph 4(c)(i) of this Policy for the reason that it claims to possess utilized the disputed website name associated with a real offering of online dating services and, by doing this, is merely building an appropriate descriptive use of the dictionary term “tender” when you look at the disputed domain title. The answer to whether or otherwise not the Respondent’s company does represent such a bona fide providing for the purposes of paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and 4(c)(i) associated with the Policy could be the Respondent’s motivation in registering the domain name that is disputed. Put differently, did the Respondent register it to make use of the reality because it is a word describing the activity of dating that it is confusingly similar to the TINDER trademark or, as the Respondent claims? This question may readily be answered by the presence of meta tags on the Respondent’s website containing other trademarks of the Complainant and its affiliates, namely, MATCH, PLENTY OF FISH and POF in the Panel’s opinion. Such existence suggests that it’s more likely than not too the Respondent had it in your mind to exploit specific well-known trademarks of contending dating companies associated with attracting traffic to its site. Within the Panel’s view, this unavoidably taints the Respondent’s assertion so it registered the disputed website name purely in colaboration with an so-called descriptive term “tender singles” and without reference to the Complainant’s TINDER trademark.

The Respondent answers this matter by pointing out that the term “match” is really a dictionary term, “plenty of fish” is really a well-known expression and “tender”, as within the disputed domain title as opposed to the meta tags, is it self a word that is dictionary. The difficulty using this assertion but is the fact that MATCH and TINDER are well-known trademarks associated with Complainant as well as its affiliates, as is sufficient OF FISH, and all sorts of among these markings are registered and utilized relating to online dating services comparable to that purporting become operated because of the Respondent. Moreover, the Respondent does not have any answer that is similar the clear presence of the POF trademark which will not fit featuring its argument of this usage of dictionary terms and expressions unrelated to virtually any trademark value. Confronted with the extra weight of proof usage of trademark terms it really is not really legitimate for the Respondent to argue that its tasks connect with an use that is purely descriptive of term “tender”.

The Panel notes for completeness that it does not accept the Respondent’s assertion that there is necessarily any qualitative difference between the absence of the word “tinder” from the meta tags and the presence of the word “tender” in the disputed domain name before leaving the topic of the meta tags. There was enough proof the utilization of terms other than “tinder” due to their trademark value when you look at the meta tags to question the Respondent’s protestations that it’s just worried about dictionary definitions.

Looking at the Respondent’s particular assertion so it has legal rights and legitimate passions in a website name composed of a dictionary expression,

Area 2.10.1 of this WIPO Overview 3.0 notes the opinion view of panels beneath the Policy that simply registering a domain title made up of a word that is dictionary expression will not by itself confer rights or legitimate passions. The section adds that the website name should really be truly utilized or demonstrably designed for used in experience of the relied upon dictionary meaning and never to trade down party that is third legal rights. In our instance, taking into consideration the term “tender singles”, the way in which of their usage in addition to long and notably tortuous explanations by the Respondent as to its so-called descriptiveness, the Panel doubts whether or not it could realistically be observed as a standard dictionary phrase which will be truly getting used in reference to the relied upon dictionary meaning. The Panel need look no further than the presence of the third party trademarks in the Respondent’s meta tags to dispose of any suggestion that the term is not being used to trade off third party trademark rights in any event.

Part 2.10.1 associated with WIPO Overview 3.0 continues on to keep in mind that Panels additionally tend to check out factors including the status and popularity of this mark that is relevant or perhaps a Respondent has registered and legitimately utilized other names of domain containing such terms or expressions. Right right Here, the Respondent’s instance needs to be seen within the context associated with the undeniable status and popularity regarding the Complainant’s TINDER mark on the basis of the proof ahead of the Panel. Such mark is incredibly well-known and commonly thought as related to online dating services comparable to people who the Respondent claims to provide. This element on its very own shows that the Respondent could perhaps not establish liberties and genuine passions into the term “tender” or “tender singles” by virtue of the claim towards the dictionary meaning.

The Respondent has reported that it has registered and legitimately utilized other names of domain containing comparable words that are allegedly descriptive expressions.

Nonetheless, this has selected never to share details inside the context regarding the present proceeding that is administrative. The Respondent proposes to reveal these in the event that full situation is withdrawn against it. This isn’t one thing to which any complainant could possibly be fairly anticipated to consent with regards to will not know very well what record contains, nor will there be any framework set down because of the insurance Policy for this kind of conditional disclosure. The point is, also had the Respondent disclosed a summary of names of domain associated with sort which it asserts so it has registered, the Panel doubts that this could fundamentally have changed its summary because of the fame regarding the Complainant’s TINDER mark, its closeness to look at towards the 2nd amount of the disputed website name together with undeniable fact that the Respondent has utilized terms focusing on other trademarks of this Complainant or its affiliates with its meta tags.

The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case that it has no rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and accordingly that the Complainant has met the test under the second element of the Policy in all of these circumstances.

Leave a Reply