1.1 Complainant is Tinder, Incorporated of Dallas, Texas, United States of America (“U.S.”), represented by Locke Lord LLP., U.S..
1.2 Respondent is Domain Admin, Whois Privacy Corp., of Nassau, Bahamas. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
2.1 The disputed domain names , , and are registered with TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
3.1 The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 22, 2016. On July 22, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On July 26, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
3.2 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”).
3.3 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 5, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 25, 2016. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on August 26, 2016.
3.4 The Center appointed David Perkins as panelist in this matter on August 30, 2016. 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 4.A Complainant
4.A.1 Complainant is in the business of providing online dating services. That business was launched in September, 2012.
4.A.2 Complainant is the proprietor of U.S. trade mark registration 4,479,131 for the mark TINDER in Class 9. The application for that mark was filed on August 2, 2012 and the mark was registered on February 4, 2014.
4.A.3 Complainant is the registrant of the domain name , which was created on June 22, 2012. That domain name resolves to Complainant’s website, “www.”. That website is interactive and enables users to download Complainant’s iOS or Android applications (“the Tinder App”). The Tinder App provides the bulk of Complainant’s dating services. Exhibited to the Complaint are statistics from DMR which indicate that as of January, 2016 the Tinder App had been downloaded an estimated 100 million times and that as March, 2015 it had an estimated 50 million users, some 60 percent of which were located outside North America.
4.A.4 Based on the foregoing, Complainant asserts that it has developed substantial rights and goodwill in the TINDER Mark, and that the public has come to associate that Mark with Complainant as the source of its well regarded dating services and the Tinder App. 4.B Respondent
4.B.1 In the absence of a Response, what is known of Respondent is derived from the Complaint and its annexes. The disputed domain names – , , ; and – were all registered on February 25, 2015.
4.B.2 Complainant states that those disputed domain names resolve to adult-oriented and sexually graphic third party websites, which are totally unrelated to Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions 5.A Complainant 5.A.1 Identical or Confusingly Similar
5.A.1.1 First, with reference to its U.S. trade mark registration – paragraph 4.A.2 above – Complainant asserts that it has rights in the TINDER Mark.
5.A.1.2 Second, Complainant asserts that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to that Mark. This is because each of those domain names differs from its TINDER registration by only one letter. For example in the letter “j” replaces the letter “i” in the TINDER trade mark. In the second letter “d” replaces the letter “e” in the TINDER trade mark. In the letter “k” replaces the letter “i” in the TINDER trade mark and in the letter “l” also replaces the letter “i” in the TINDER trade mark.
5.A.1.3 Furthermore, Complainant notes that in each of those misspellings the two letters respectively “j” and “n”, “d” and “e”, “k” and “i” and “l” and “i” are closely juxtaposed on a standard keyboard. In sum, Complainant says that this is a blatant case of typosquatting. 5.A.2. Rights or Legitimate Interests
5.A.2.1 Complainant’s case is that Respondent cannot demonstrate any of the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.
5.A.2.2 Complainant says that, since each of the disputed domain names are only one erroneous keystroke away from the TINDER Mark, it is plain that those names are intended to divert users in search of Complainant’s services to the adult-oriented and sexually explicit third party websites to which they resolve. Such is not, Complainant says, a bona fide, noncommercial or fair use of those disputed domain names. Indeed, Complainant asserts that such use will cause it irreparable loss and damage to its business which is based on the TINDER mark. 5.A.3 Registered and Used in Bad Faith
5.A.3.1 Complainant points to the facts that both its TINDER trade mark and domain name were used and had become well-known well before the disputed domain names were created in February, 2015.
5.A.3.2 Complainant reiterates that Respondent is a typosquatter and that, on the facts summarised above, the circumstances in paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv) of the Policy apply.
5.A.3.3 Complainant also refers to both a “Cease & Desist” letter dated June 9, 2016 addressed to Respondent and to reports dated June 16, 2016 and July 1, 2016 sent to Respondent’s “Report Abuse” platform, to none of which did Respondent respond. This, Complainant says, is another indicia of Respondent’s bad faith. Those communications are exhibited to the Complaint. 5.B. Respondent
5.B.1 As noted, Respondent has not responded to the Complaint. 6. Discussion and Findings
6.1 The Policy, paragraph 4(a) provides that Complainant must prove each of the following in order to succeed in this administrative proceeding:
(i) that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and
(iii) that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
6.2 The Policy, paragraph 4(c) sets out circumstances which, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved shall demonstrate Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
6.3 The Policy, paragraph 4(b) sets out circumstances which, again in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.
6.4 As stated, the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) and 4(c) of the Policy are not exclusionary. They are without limitation. That is, the Policy expressly recognizes that other circumstances can be evidence relevant the requirements of paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Policy. Identical or Confusingly Similar
6.5 Complainant clearly has rights in the TINDER trade mark and, consequently, the Complaint satisfies the first part of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
6.6 Complainant has cited a number of decisions under the Policy, which it says demonstrate that the disputed domain names in this administrative proceeding are confusingly similar to its trade mark. A number of those cases involved disputed domain names which wholly incorporated complainant’s trade mark. For example, EAuto, L.L.C. v. Triple S. Auto Parts d/b/a Kung Fu Yea Enterprises, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0047 (disputed domain name versus complainant’s EAUTO trade mark); Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. ,WIPO Case No. D2002-0615 (disputed domain name versus complainant’s BMW trade mark); and A, Inc. v. Oluseyi Ikhizamah,WIPO Case No. D2002-1168 (disputed domain name versus complainant’s AMAZON trade mark). However, none of the disputed domain names in this case wholly incorporate Complainant’s TINDER trade mark.
6.7 There are, however, numerous cases decided under the Policy which involve typosquatting – substituting one letter in complainant’s trade mark for another in the disputed domain name – where such disputed domain names have been held to be confusingly similar to the trade mark. Complainant cites three such cases. United Feature Syndicate, Inc. v. Mr. John Zuccarini,WIPO Case No. D2000-1449 (disputed domain name versus complainant’s DILBERT trade mark); Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. John Zuccarini, Cupcake City and Cupcake Patrol,WIPO Case No. D2001-0489 (numerous disputed domain names including versus complainant’s DISNEYCHANNEL; versus complainant’s DISNEYWORLD trade mark; and versus complainant’s WALT DISNEY trade mark); and E, Inc. v. Yingkun Guo, dba This domain name is 4 sale,WIPO Case No. D2006-0694 (disputed domain names omitting the letter “u” in Complainant’s EDMUNDS trade mark and omitting the letter “m” in that trade mark).
6.8 As noted, there are numerous other decisions where such typosquatting has been held to be confusingly similar to complainant’s’ trade marks. For example, Atlas Copco Aktiebolag v. Telecom Tech Corp., Private Registration (name),WIPO Case No. D2010-0396 (disputed domain names and versus the ATLAS COPCO trade mark); Network Solutions, LLC v. XCsquare,WIPO Case No. D2005-1244 (disputed domain names and versus the NETWORK SOLUTIONS trade mark); and Allstate Insurance Company v. PrivacyProtect. org / Purple Bucquet,WIPO Case No. D2011-0003; Allstate Insurance Company v. Private Whois Service,WIPO Case No. D2011-0195; and Allstate Insurance Company v. Private Whois Service,WIPO Case No. D2011-0208 which all involved misspellings of the ALLSTATE trade mark.
6.9 Many of such cases have involved disputed domain names which are phonetically and/or visually similar to the complainant’s trade mark. Whilst in this case the disputed domain name is phonetically similar to Complainant’s TINDER trade mark, the other three are not. Notwithstanding, as noted in paragraphs 5.A.1.2 and 3 above, there is substitution of only one letter in each and those substitute letters are closely juxtaposed on the standard keyboard. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that all four disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TINDER trade mark and, accordingly, the Complaint satisfies the second requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Rights or Legitimate Interests
6.10 The Panel finds Complainant’s case summarised in paragraph 5.A.2 well made out and Respondent did not file a Response to demonstrate any circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. Consequently, the Complaint succeeds under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
6.11 Similarly, the Panel finds Complainant’s case summarised in paragraph 5.A.3 above well made out and that the disputed domain names redirect to porn website which is evidence of bad faith use. Consequently, the Complaint succeeds under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision
7.1 For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names , , and be transferred to Complainant.
David Perkins
Sole Panelist
Date: September 13, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy