Under the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy



MatchNet PLC 


Scott Gordon (SBBS Software & Consulting, Inc)

Case Number:


Contested Domain Name(s): 

Panel Member:

Pierre-Emmanuel Moyse


1. Parties and Contested Domain Name

The Complainant is MatchNet PLC (hereinafter referred to as the "Complainant"), with an address at 73 Abbey Road, London, SW8 0AE England. The Complainant's Prime Contact or Representative is Adam Kravitz, located at the same address.

The Respondent is Scott Gordon (hereinafter referred to as the "Respondent"), with an address at 444 Skokie Blvd, #211, Wilmette, Illinois, 60091 USA. Respondent has no Prime Contact or Representative. 

The dispute concerns the domain name "" (hereinafter referred to as the "Domain Name"). The Registrar with whom the Domain Name is registered is Internet Domain Registrars (hereinafter the Registrar).

2. Procedural History

The electronic version of the Complaint form was filed on-line through eResolution's Website on October 2, 2001. The hardcopy of the Complaint Form and annexes were received on October 18, 2001. Payment was received on October 16, 2001.

Upon receiving all the required information, eResolution's clerk proceeded to:

- Confirm the identity of the Registrar for the contested Domain Name;
- Verify the Registrar's Whois Database and confirm all the essential contact information for Respondent;
- Verify if the contested Domain Name resolved to an active Web page;
- Verify if the Complaint was administratively compliant.

This inquiry lead the Clerk of eResolution to the following conclusions: the Registrar is INTERNET DOMAIN REGISTRARS, the Whois database contains all the required contact information, the contested Domain Name resolves to an active Web page and the Complaint is administratively compliant.

The Clerk then proceeded to send a copy of the Complaint Form and the required Cover Sheet in accordance with paragraph 2 (a) of the ICANN's Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. The Clerk's Office fulfilled all its responsibilities under Paragraph 2(a) in forwarding the Complaint to the Respondent, notifying the Complainant, the concerned Registrar and ICANN on October 18, 2001. This date is the official commencement date of the administrative proceeding.

No emails were returned 'undeliverable'. All the faxes were successful. 

The complaint, official notification and all the annexes were sent via registered mail with proof of service, to the respondent. According to the Canada Post tracking system, all were delivered.

On November 7, 2001, the Respondent submitted, via eResolution Internet site, his response. The signed version of the response was received on November 7, 2001. 

On November 16, 2001, the Clerk's Office contacted Pierre-Emmanuel Moyse, and requested that he acts as panelist in this case.

On November 19, 2001, Pierre-Emmanuel Moyse accepted to act as panelist in this case and filed the necessary Declaration of Independence and Impartiality.

On November 21, 2001, the Clerk's Office forwarded a user name and a password to Pierre-Emmanuel Moyse, allowing him to access the Complaint Form, the Response Form, and the evidence through eResolution's Automated Docket Management System.

On November 21, 2001, the parties were notified that Pierre-Emmanuel Moyse had been appointed and that a decision was to be, save exceptional circumstances, handed down on December 5, 2001.

3. Factual Background

The following uncontradicted and unchallenged facts appear from the Complaint, documents submitted with the Complaint as well as verifications conducted by the Panel:, one of the Complainant's web sites, is one of the most popular online plateform which offers online dating services targeting - but not exclusively - single Jews worldwide. The trademark JDate was registered with the US Patent and Trade Mark Office on January 16, 2001.

Complainant has used the trademark JDate in connection with computer services, notably to provide a web site for facilitating the introduction of individuals, since at least January 8, 1997, date of the launch of the web site.

Pursuant to the research conducted in the WHOIS database, proprio motu, by the Panel, it appears that the Respondent registered the Domain Name on February, 8th, 2000 with the Registrar.

The evidence (Schedule C of the Complaint) establishes that the Respondent has used the Domain Name, at least for a period of time, to redirect Internet users to its own web site hosted under the domain 

On September 6, 2001, the Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent requesting that the Respondent cease from using the Domain Name.

4. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

With respect to the similarity of the Domain Name, the Complainant alleges that: 

" The Respondent has registered and used the domain name as a jump page to in order to create confusion amongst Internet users that the trade mark JDate(r) and the site Jdate(r).com is either (i) the source of the sites, or, (ii) is sponsoring the and/or sites, or, (iii) is endorsing the and/ sites, or, (iv) has an affiliation agreement with the and/or sites. "

With respect to the grounds of illegitimate use and to the element of bad faith, the Complainant alleges that:

" By using the domain name as a jump page to drive traffic in order to promote, which is an identical online service to the one provided by the Complainant and by negotiating with other parties to sell the domain name Respondents conduct constitutes blatant "cyberpiracy" and "cybersquatting". As the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name Respondent has registered the domain name in bad faith. Registration and use of the domain name by the Respondent constitutes dilution by tarnishment of the name JDate(r) and is weakening the distinctiveness of the JDate(r) trademark. "

B. Respondent

With respect to the similarity of the Domain Name, the Complainant alleges that: 

" was originally registered in 2000 with 35+ other domains as SBBS began to put together a Jewish Singles project. At this time there were no reported trademarks on file that we found.

After a review of all the available domains and suffixes (com net org, etc) available, we chose All domains were registered to the same server, so all automatically pointed to the root site of the server, which is

Until recently, I had forgotten all about the domain I knew we had a bunch of domains from the original reservation process, but none of them were actively being used/promoted.

When Matchnet provided the requested documentation in regards to trademark, the domain was re-directed. "

With respect to the grounds of illegitimate use and to the element of bad faith, the Complainant alleges that: 

" Matchnet already owns - I see is currently for sale. Their trademark protects them against anyone using their name and operating a Jewish Dating Site. 

As I stated before, and even in my emails to Matchnet when I was first contacted, our intentions were never to confuse the user. was simply an oversight in a group of 35+ domains which were registered when the project planning was going on for the project.

I see no reason why MatchNet should be entitled TO EVERY jdate domain name. As requested we have re-directed the domain, and I already assured them that the domain name would not be utilized for a Jewish Dating Site. The site (when it pointed to was obvious that it was NOT Jdate. Visit to see the site, however, it says very clearly in the top left hand corner. There simply was no way a user could be confused if they were looking for jdate.

There was simply no way a user could be confused if they knew they were looking for Jdate. In addition, when a user registers, he/she receives an e-mail from myself welcoming them to, again stating the name.
I agree they have a trademark on Jdate, a Jewish Dating Site, but do not believe they have precidence to be legally entitled to every jdate.XXX domain as long as the other domains are not representing themselves as a Jewish Dating Site.

SBBS is currently planning another project which would be utilized that would not have anything to do with a Jewish Dating Site.

In the event Matchnet is awared, then every other domain holder around the world with,,, etc are all in violation of their terms as well.

The real reason for all these new suffixes is to allow more domains to be out there assuming they are being utilized correctly. "

5. Discussion and Findings

Copy or Similarity

The Complainant has a registered trademark duly registered with the USPTO, copy of the certificate which has been filed along with the Complaint. The Panel notes that the trademark JDATE has been registered in connection with services defined as : "computer services, namely providing a website for facilitating the introduction of individuals - class 42". The date of first use claimed by the Complainant is February 1997.

There is not serious issue with respect to the similarity between the Domain Name registered by the Respondent and the Complainant's trademark: the Domain Name is strictly identical to the Complainant's trademark. 

The fact that the Respondent registered the Domain name with the Registrar before the Complainant obtained a registration for its trademark does not impair the Complainant's ability from claiming its rights in the Domain Name pursuant to the ICANN policy nor its common law rights for prior use of said trademark.

It is noteworthy to add that, accordingly to the documentation filed with the Complaint, the Complainant's website is one of the most popular Internet dating site with more than 200 000 members around the world. 


The Panel understands from the evidence filed by both parties that the Domain Name has never been used to host a web site as such but rather to redirect Internet users to one of the respondent's web site, also dedicated to on-line dating: Schedule C of the Complaint, dated September 24, 2001, is a printout of the redirection page. The following message appeared on the user's screen one Domain Name is typed in the browser : "Now directing you to - if your browser does not support redirection, please click here"

The Respondent registered the Domain Name on February 8, 2001. Searches conducted by the panel lead to the same conclusion.

Paragraph 4 (a) (ii) of the ICANN Policy inquires as to whether or not the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests vested in the Domain Name. Paragraph 4 (c) of the Policy illustrates how a Respondent can demonstrate rights or interest in the Domain Name at issue. This paragraph sets out three non-exhaustive examples, such as:

- before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
- you (as an individual, business or other organisation) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
- you are making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleading divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

In the case at hand, Complainant alleged that the Respondent was not making legitimate use of the Domain Name.

The Panel is of the opinion that illegitimacy can be reasonably induced from the fact that the Respondent intentionally redirected the Internet user to a competing web site for Jewish singles. Respondent contends merely than there is "no reason why" the Complainant why "should be entitled TO EVERY jdate domain name". The Panel does see why the Complainant is entitled to have the Domain Name transferred and agrees with the Complainant's conclusions. 

The Respondent, consequently, failed to demonstrate that he has used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of services. This conclusion should be read in conjunction with the findings regarding the bad faith criteria.

Bad Faith

Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the ICANN Policy it is incumbent upon the Complainant to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. 

Paragraph 4(b) of the ICANN Policy provides a number of non-exhaustive circumstances which, if found to be present, are evidence of the registration and use of a Domain Name in bad faith. In particular, paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the ICANN Policy holds that, if the circumstances tend to indicate that by using the Domain Name the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his web site, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's web site, then this might be evidence of bad faith registration and use on behalf of the Respondent.

The evidence shows that the Respondent has used the Domain Name as a jump page to which is an on-line Jewish dating service. 

The Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant has met its burden of proof and has proven that such use of the Domain Name has been in bad faith pursuant to the ICANN policy. 

The Respondent's statement contained in an e-mail dated September 25, copy of which is filed with the Complaint under Schedule J and which reads as follows "SBBS is currently in negotiations with another firm whom is interested in purchasing the domain" does not invite the Panel to conclude otherwise. 

6. Conclusions

For the foregoing reasons, the Panel decides: 

- that the Domain Name registered by the Respondent is identical to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights; 
- that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
- the Domain Name has been registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith.
Accordingly, pursuant to paragraph 4(i) of the ICANN Policy, the Panel orders that the registration of the Domain Name:


be transferred to the Complainant.

7. Signature

(s) Pierre-Emmanuel Moyse

Montréal, Québec, Canada

December 4, 2001

Sole Panelist