{ "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-007240", "time_of_filling": null, "domain_names": [ "GOTINDER.eu" ], "case_administrator": "Aneta Jelenová (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Tinder, Incorporated ( )" ], "complainant_representative": null, "respondent": [ "Margret Eagle" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant, a US corporation, has offered online and mobile dating services under the name “Tinder” since 2012. Its website is at . \r\n\r\nThe Complainant’s mobile dating application (“App”) has been downloaded by an estimated 50 million users in some 200 countries. Around 60% of the Complainant’s users are outside North America.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant owns US trade mark no. 4,479,131 for “TINDER” filed 2 August 2012, in international class 9.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered on 16 February 2014.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was used for a website which prominently displayed a large graphic consisting of a stylised “tinder” logo, the phrases “Tinder is the fun way to connect with new and interesting people around you” and “Join Tinder Now!” and an outline of a mobile phone with a graphical representation of a dating application. Clicking on the “Join Tinder Now!” button redirected users to a different website, known as . \r\n\r\nThe Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent by email on 18 May 2016. The Respondent did not respond.", "other_legal_proceedings": "None.", "discussion_and_findings": "Introduction\r\n\r\nUnder Article 21(1) of Regulation (EC) 874\/2004 (“the Regulation”), the disputed domain name is subject to revocation if it is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law, such as the rights mentioned in Article 10(1), and where it (a) has been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interests in the name or (b) has been registered or is being used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nRights\r\n\r\nThe Complainant must first establish a right that “is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law, such as the rights mentioned in Article 10(1)”. \r\n\r\nArticle 10(1) of the Regulation refers to “prior rights” which are said to include “registered national and community trademarks, geographical indications or designations of origin, and, in as far as they are protected under national law in the Member-State where they are held: unregistered trademarks, trade names, business identifiers, company names […]”.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant relies on a US-registered trade mark. Previous panels have taken different approaches as to whether trade marks registered outside the EU can be considered as “prior rights” under Article 10 (1). See, e.g., cases AuntMinnie.com, Ms. Maury Morse v. Jeffrey Leichter, CAC No. 1580, and PICMG Europe, Eelco van der Wal v. Barbara Baldwin, CAC No. 4478, . However, it is unnecessary to reach any conclusion on this point because, although the evidence is somewhat thin and not country-specific, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has narrowly established unregistered trade mark rights for the term “Tinder” within the EU based on its uncontested evidence of enormous worldwide fame, including outside North America. In that regard it should be noted that several European countries, including Denmark, Malta, and the UK, recognize unregistered “common law” rights and numerous Panels have in the past have held that unregistered rights can be the basis of a valid claim, see among others cases HS Automatic v. Zenghui Fuhechan & Zheng Qingying, CAC 5301, and Zoologisk Have v. Name Battery Limited, CAC No. 3942, .\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s “Tinder” trade mark as it differs only by addition of the descriptive word “go”. \r\n\r\nFor the above reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a name in respect of which the Complainant possesses a right recognised or established by national and\/or EU law. \r\n\r\nLack of Rights or Legitimate Interests.\r\n\r\nUnder Article 21(1) of the Regulation (a) lack of rights or legitimate interests and (b) registration or use in bad faith are alternative requirements. For reasons explained below, the Panel considers that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith and so there is no need to separately address lack of rights or legitimate interests.\r\n\r\nBad Faith\r\n\r\nThe Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name was clearly registered with the Complainant very much in mind. Not only does it reflect the exact variation of the Complainant's trade mark found in the name of the Complainant's own website , the disputed domain name has been used for a website which plainly set out to impersonate the Complainant and to divert traffic to a third party adult dating website.\r\n\r\nAccordingly, the disputed domain name has been intentionally used to create a likelihood of confusion in accordance with Article 21(3)(d) of the Regulation.\r\n\r\nFinally, the Panel notes that the Complainant has its seat in the USA. As such the Complainant has not fulfilled the general eligibility criteria of Article 4(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No. 733\/2002. The disputed domain name, which would otherwise have been transferred to the Complainant, is therefore revoked in accordance with remedies sought by the Complainant.", "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name GOTINDER.EU be revoked", "panelists": [ null ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2016-10-06 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "I. Disputed domain name: gotinder.eu\r\n\r\nII. Country of the Complainant: US, country of the Respondent: France\r\n\r\nIII. Date of registration of the domain name: 16 February 2014\r\n\r\nIV. Rights relied on by the Complainant (Art. 21 (1) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004) on which the Panel based its decision: unregistered trade mark.\r\n\r\nV. Response submitted: No\r\n\r\nVI. Domain name is confusingly similar to the protected rights of the Complainant\r\n\r\nVII. Rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent (Art. 21 (2) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004): Not considered. \r\n\r\nVIII. Bad faith of the Respondent (Art. 21 (3) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004):\r\n 1. Yes\r\n 2. Use of domain name for a website impersonating the Complainant and diverting traffic to a third party website.\r\n\r\nIX. Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant: None.\r\n\r\nX. Dispute Result: Revocation of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nXI. Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant: None.", "decision_domains": [], "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }