[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Muslim marriage app Muzmatch has lost the right to use its name after a trademark dispute with US dating giant Match Group, which owns Match.com, Hinge and Tinder after Judge Nicholas Caddick sitting in The UK Intellectual Property Enterprise Court on Wednesday ruled that Muzmatch took an \u201cunfair advantage\u201d over the association of the word \u201cmatch\u201d \u00a0which could lead consumers to believe the two companies were connected.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Muzmatch said it does not have an alternative name and plans to appeal against the decision, arguing that the word \u201cmatch\u201d is a descriptive English term for matchmaking.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
A Match spokesperson said: \u201cWe are pleased that the court recognised what we have known to be true: that Muzmatch has unfairly benefited from Match Group\u2019s reputation and investment in its brand and was riding Match Group\u2019s coattails for undeserved gain in this highly competitive market\u201d.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Suffering a dispute can have serious implications on you and your livelihood and reputation. Our dispute resolution solicitors will quickly and efficiently put your case together and act on your behalf. Call Vijay Srivastava or Shalish Mehta in our civil and commercial litigation department on 0161 624 6811(Option 6) or email vjs@wrigleyclaydon.com or sm@wrigleyclaydon.com<\/a>. We can advise you on the appropriate course of action and assist with any legal documents or proceedings that may occur.<\/strong>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row][vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Civil Litigation<\/a> [vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Muslim marriage app Muzmatch has lost the right to use its name after a trademark dispute with US dating giant Match Group, which owns Match.com, Hinge and Tinder after Judge Nicholas Caddick sitting in The UK Intellectual Property Enterprise Court on Wednesday ruled that Muzmatch took an \u201cunfair advantage\u201d over the association of the word…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":16,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5616,221],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-18811","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-intellectual-property","category-litigation-disputes","category-5616","category-221","description-off"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wrigleyclaydon.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18811","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wrigleyclaydon.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wrigleyclaydon.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wrigleyclaydon.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/16"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wrigleyclaydon.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=18811"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.wrigleyclaydon.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/18811\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.wrigleyclaydon.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=18811"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wrigleyclaydon.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=18811"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.wrigleyclaydon.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=18811"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nDispute Resolution<\/a>
\nCommercial Litigation<\/a>
\nIntellectual Property Solicitors<\/a>[\/vc_column_text][\/vc_column][\/vc_row]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"