Case No. EWHC-941-(IPEC)

CLAIM NO. IP-2020-000080IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND & WALESINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LIST (CHD)INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENTERPRISE COURT EUROPEAN UNION TRADE MARK COURTJudgment handed down by emailBefore:NICHOLAS CADDICK Q.C. (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)BETWEEN:(1) MATCH GROUP, LLC(2) MEETIC SAS(3) MATCH.COM INTERNATIONAL LIMITEDClaimants-and-(1) MUZMATCH LIMITED(2) SHAHZAD YOUNAS DefendantsTIM AUSTEN (instructed by Browne Jacobson LLP) for the ClaimantsJESSIE BOWHILL (instructed by Bristows LLP) for the DefendantsHearing dates: 17th and 18th January 2022JUDGMENTNicholas Caddick Q.C. (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge):Introduction1.This is an action by the Claimants for trade mark infringement and passing off in relation to the use of the word “match” for online introduction and dating services. 2.Both sides assert that the case is simple or straightforward. Despite this and despite this being heard as a two-day trial in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (“IPEC”), there were 21 lever arch files of documents, 4 lever arch files of authorities and each side’s opening submissions ran to more than 70 pages. 3.The Claimants are members of the Match group and are involved in the operation of a number of online dating sites worldwide, including the UK. As no point is taken as regards their precise roles or involvement in that business, I will not seek to distinguish between them and will refer to them collectively as “Match”. 4.Match is the proprietor of a number of registered trade marks in the words or devices and for the goods and services set out in the table below:5.I will refer to the first mark listed above as “the 1996 Match.com Mark”, to the second as “the 2017 Match.com Mark” and to the third as “the Match Device Mark”. I will refer to the first two of them as “the Match.com Marks” and to the first three of them collectively as “the Match Marks”. I will refer to the final two marks listed above as “the Tinder Marks”.6.In around April 2011, the Second Defendant (Mr Younas) set up a business under the name Muzmatch with the aim of providing online or internet based matchmaking services to the Muslim community. Mr Younas did this in his spare time away from his main job as a Vice President of the Institutional Equities Division of Morgan Stanley. Initially, he operated Muzmatch as a sole trader but, at the end of 2014, he left Morgan Stanley and, on 7 January 2015, founded the First Defendant (Muzmatch Limited) to take over the Muzmatch business. As Mr Younas is the CEO and the moving force of Muzmatch Limited, I will refer to the Defendants collectively as “Muzmatch” save where it is necessary to distinguish between them.7.By a Claim Form issued on 30 July 2020, Match claimed that Muzmatch has infringed each of the above trade marks and has committed acts of passing off. The claim concerned Muzmatch’s use of the word “match” as part of its name and also its use of the words “match” and “tinder” as part of a search engine optimisation (“SEO”) strategy designed to increase the number of customers visiting the Muzmatch website. 8.By an Order dated 18 June 2021, Muzmatch submitted to judgment in respect of the uses it had made of the word “tinder” and it gave undertakings not to use that word in relation to dating services and websites and mobile applications for internet dating and matchmaking. However, it continued to deny liability with regard to the claims relating to its use of the word “match”. It does not seek to invalidate the Match Marks but argues that its activities do not infringe. In particular, it argues that the word “match” used by itself is not distinctive and that Match is wrongly seeking to monopolise a word (“match”), which is an ordinary descriptive word when used in relation to dating and introduction services.