Case No. EWHC-941-(IPEC)

36.Mr Riviere gave evidence as to how Match had achieved this level of awareness with the public. He referred to its investment in TV advertising, outdoor posters, radio advertisements, inserts for print magazines, PR, social media and digital advertising. Insofar as he referred to events or matters from the time before he joined Match in April 2012, he asserted (and I accept) that what he says is consistent with his knowledge of the Match business and its documents and, given the evidential constraints inherent in this being a 2 day IPEC trial, I can see no reason to doubt the accuracy of his evidence in this regard.37.Mr Riviere’s evidence, which I accept, was that in 2010, spending on TV advertising for Match in the UK was an estimated £4,936,000 (28% of the total spend in the whole dating category and not including the further £4,779,000 spent on Match Affinity). In 2011, the TV advertising spend for Match.com alone was £6,759,000 (31%) (again, not including the £2,844,000 spent in respect of Match Affinity). In 2012 it was £8,551,000 (52%). The sums, whilst estimates, suggest that Match funded extensive advertising and I do not accept Ms Bowhill’s comment that such evidence was meaningless. Indeed, as mentioned above, the TNS reports from 2010 and 2011 both paid tribute to the success of Match’s advertising, and in particular to its TV advertising, in creating awareness of the Match brand. 38.Mr Riviere listed 58 different television advertisements run by Match between 2009 and 2020, including 10 that were aired before the launch of Muzmatch in April or May 2011. These advertisements would have had multiple views as they were aired on 240 or so digital and analogue television channels (including many that were accessible in the UK). They were also uploaded onto Match’s YouTube channel. I have been provided with copies of 26 of these advertisements. In 9 of them (including one called “Laces” from 2010 and others from 2012 to 2014) the voiceover (including those of purported customers) refers to “Match” as the source of the relevant dating services.5 The advertisements also used on-screen text to direct viewers to the “match.com” or “matchaffinity.com” websites for more details. Ms Bowhill commented that there was no evidence from those whose voices were used in the advertisements nor as to the circumstances in which these words came to be used. However, I see no reason to doubt that the words were those of actual users and, even if this were not the case, these advertisements still show how Match was choosing to project its brand to the public (as “Match” as well as “match.com”). Nor do I accept Ms Bowhill’s criticism that this is akin to survey/witness evidence for which no permission was given. None of this material was produced for the purposes of litigation. Instead, it was produced precisely in order to promote Match’s brand to the public and, accordingly, seems to me to be of significance.39.Match also promoted its business via social media. As I have mentioned above, between January 2009 and March 2011, it created two Twitter handles. I do not have figures for Match’s followers on Twitter as at 2011 (although Mr Riviere’s evidence is that they had 103,000 and 14,000 followers respectively as at October 2021). However, Match’s YouTube channel which was created in December 2009 had had over 500,000 views as at 30 January 2012 (and over 6 million views by October 2021) whilst Match’s Facebook page at www.facebook.com/matchuk/ created in March 2010 had had over 6,000 page likes as at November 2011 (and 203,000 by October 2021). I note that the internet addresses for these forms of social media used the word “match” or “matchuk” or UKmatch” rather than “match.com”.40.Finally, as set out in Match’s Amended Particulars of Claim, there were a significant number of advertisements in printed and online media which used the Match Marks. These included advertisements in the Metro on 27 June 2010 and in the Daily Mail and the Mail Online on 6 October 2010, each generating a very significant number of “opportunities to see” for the public. 41.The success of this advertising is apparent not only from the brand awareness figures referred to above but also from the fact that there were 342,086 UK visitors to the Match website in May 2011 alone and from the fact that, in the UK, Match had around 119,000 subscribers and sales in excess of €25m in 2010 and around 129,00 subscribers and sales of more than €29m in 2011. Finally, Mr Riviere’s evidence was that, according to YouGov research from 2011, Match was the dating brand that was the source of most relationships and marriages.