• Sectors we work in banner(2)

    Quick Reads

US Court 'swipes left' on dating app dispute

min read

A Texas federal court last week dismissed the two-year long lawsuit between Match Group (“Match”) – owner of the popular dating app Tinder – and Tinder's rival dating app Bumble, following a motion to dismiss filed by the parties after they reached an out-of-court settlement. 


The suit was filed in 2018, when Match announced that it was suing Bumble for infringing a number of its IP rights, most notably:


1)    The design patent for the app layout – Match alleged that Bumble had copied Tinder’s in-app layout of how other Tinder users’ ‘cards’ appear to a Tinder user during the swiping process, and how the other features of the app, such as the undo button, were positioned on the screen in relation to other users’ cards.  Match argued that Bumble had seen Tinder’s success from using its layout, and essentially copied it.


2)    The SWIPE trade mark - Match also alleged that Bumble had infringed its registered ‘SWIPE’ trade mark which relates to the well-known right/left swiping function that enables users to indicate their willingness to match, or not match, with another user. Match argued that Bumble’s use of the swiping function, as well as references to swiping in the app and in its promotional material, would cause a likelihood of confusion to members of the public, and harm Match’s goodwill in the mark that had been generated through its use by Tinder. 


To add further heat, Match also asserted that Bumble’s co-founder, Whitey Herd, who had been an executive at Tinder when the design patent and trade mark were being developed, had broken a confidentiality agreement in revealing details of Match’s intellectual property to Bumble.


Bumble countersued and released a public statement calling out Match’s lawsuit as “baseless”, and stating that “we swipe left on your attempted scare tactics and endless games.” 


In its legal arguments responding to Match’s allegations, Bumble referenced differences in the layout of the apps, such as Tinder’s presentation of other users as a ‘stack of cards’ clearly stacked one behind another, whereas in its own layout, the potential match being shown to the app user takes up the entirety of the screen without giving a ‘stack of cards’ impression. 


In response to the SWIPE trade mark allegations, Bumble argued that the SWIPE mark was (i) too descriptive (i.e. the mark simply described the function), and (ii) not sufficiently distinctive – two features that could invalidate a trade mark – and therefore its use of the swiping function did not infringe Match’s SWIPE mark. 


The litigation has been ongoing for the past two years, with various additional arguments and evidence being presented, but – perhaps growing bored of searching for a solution and not getting anywhere, a situation that some of their users may have found themselves in – the parties finally reached a confidential settlement last week. 


Whilst both parties have stated that they have reached an amicable resolution, I’m not convinced that they would be ‘swiping right’ on each other just yet… 

Our thinking

  • Dewdney William Drew writes for Solicitor's Journal on similarity, reverse confusion, and trade mark risk

    Dewdney William Drew

    In the Press

    min read
  • Charles Russell Speechlys appoints Robert Lundie Smith as Head of Intellectual Property

    Robert Lundie Smith

    News

    min read
  • Dewdney William Drew contributes to Law360's Practice Leader Insights series

    Dewdney William Drew

    In the Press

    min read
  • Charles Russell Speechlys hires first IT, Data and AI Partner with leading digital health expertise in Paris

    Marguerite Brac de La Perrière

    News

    min read
  • Dewdney William Drew comments in Business Green on a recent UK Supreme Court ruling that has effectively prohibited Oatly from using the word 'milk' in its marketing

    Dewdney William Drew

    In the Press

    min read
  • Technology Sector Lookahead 2026

    Mark Bailey

    Insights

    min read
  • Food & Beverage Lookahead 2026

    Olivia Gray

    Insights

    min read
  • Retail and Consumer Lookahead 2026

    Rachel Bell

    Insights

    min read
  • Responsible Personal Data Use in Loyalty Programmes

    Shirley Fu

    Insights

    min read
  • Dewdney Drew writes for the AI Journal on AI actors and the legal hurdles facing a digital revolution

    Dewdney William Drew

    In the Press

    min read
  • Navigating Regulation (EU) 2019/880: implementation in Italy and competent authorities for the New European Framework for Importing Works of Arts

    Maria Cristiana Felisi

    Quick Reads

    min read
  • World Intellectual Property Review quotes Dewdney William Drew on the Getty Images vs Stability AI decision

    Dewdney William Drew

    In the Press

    min read
  • Charles Russell Speechlys further expands Intellectual Property offering with new Partner hire in London

    Stewart Hey

    News

    min read
  • AI and Intellectual Property: Ownership, Infringement and Reform

    Caroline Young

    Insights

    min read
  • The Daily Telegraph quotes Nicola Saccardo on our Italian practice and wealthy individuals relocating to Italy

    Nicola Saccardo

    In the Press

    min read
  • Charles Russell Speechlys adds Corporate, Fintech, IP and Art Law team in Milan with Arrival of Annapaola Negri-Clementi and Team

    Nicola Saccardo

    News

    min read
  • Exiting an investment - how Single Family Offices can prepare a company for sale

    Mike Barrington

    Insights

    min read
  • Copyright Hell: Sketchy evidence is better than no evidence

    Dewdney William Drew

    Insights

    min read
  • Retail Collection – Episode 5: itsu [grocery]: driving growth through innovation

    Olivia Gray

    Podcasts

  • The Life of a Showgirl (TM) | How to Launch an Iconic Album?

    Dewdney William Drew

    Quick Reads

    min read
Back to top