Case No. EWHC-941-(IPEC)

9.Match relied on the evidence of Alexandre Lubot and of Jérôme Riviere. Mr Lubot joined the Match group in 2011 and is the CEO of EMEA and APAC division of Match Group Inc. of which the present Claimants are indirectly subsidiaries. His evidence concerned the nature of Match’s business and its brand positioning. He also dealt with Muzmatch’s business and its SEO strategies and with certain negotiations between Match and Muzmatch. Mr Riviere is the Brand and Consumer Vice President of the Second Claimant, having joined the Match group in 2012. His evidence dealt with how Match had used and built its brand, with its reputation and with its customers, including its Muslim customers.10.Both Mr Lubot and Mr Riviere were cross examined and, in closing, Ms Bowhill commented that they had “stuck to the party line that their brand was ‘match’”. If this was a criticism of them, then I do not accept it. In my judgment, their evidence reflected their genuine belief regarding Match’s brand and I find that they were both straightforward and honest witnesses doing their best to assist the court. 11.There were occasions when the evidence of Mr Lubot and Mr Riviere related to events occurring or to reports produced before they joined Match. This is to some extent unavoidable given the restrictions on the number of witnesses under the IPEC procedure. However, I am satisfied that they were able to assist the court based on their knowledge of Match’s records.12.The Defendants relied on the evidence of Mr Younas and of Mr Geoffrey Craig. Mr Younas gave extensive evidence regarding his foundation of Muzmatch and of its activities and also, supported by Mr Craig, about how the name “Muzmatch” came to be chosen in 2011. Mr Craig was another senior employee of Morgan Stanley and, save for his involvement in the choice of the Muzmatch name, has no interest or role in the Muzmatch business. Both Mr Younas and Mr Craig were cross examined and, in closing, Mr Austen (whilst not agreeing with aspects of their evidence) did not criticise them as witnesses. He was right not to do so. I find that they too were straightforward and honest witnesses doing their best to assist the court.13.Based on that evidence and the documentary evidence, I will now deal with my findings of fact with regard to the parties’ branding, reputation and activities.