Muslim relationship app Muzz has actually lost its court appeal versus the Match Group. The UK Court of Appeal has actually maintained the June 2022 judgment which discovered that the name ‘Muzmatch’ unjustly gained from the track record of Match.
A representative for the Match Group informed the BBC “We’ve constantly understood that Muzmatch has actually unjustly gained from our credibility and financial investment in our brand names, and was unrightfully riding Match Group’s coat-tails for its own gain”.
“We will keep safeguarding the work and imagination of our staff members as we continue to spark significant connections for all singles, of all backgrounds, all around the world”, they continued.
In reaction, Muzz released a declaration calling the outcome “deeply fretting for other start-ups in the dating sector”.
Shahzad Younas, Founder and CEO of Muzz, informed the BBC that legal action was a method used by the Match Group to “preserve their worldwide dominant position”.
“How about in fact innovating and constructing much better items, instead of utilizing such lazy and predatory techniques versus your competitors?” Younas stated.
Younas shared that the legal costs and damages sustained by the legal procedures totaled up to nearly $2 million. He described that while this was a reasonably little charge for the Match Group, it was a substantial quantity for a start-up like Muzz.
“It is clear to us that Match Group will do all they can to eliminate us with a view to them keeping their near monopoly on the worldwide dating market”, Younas stated.
This Court of Appeal judgment is not the last legal action in between the Match Group and Muzz. A patent violation case begun by Match Group was submitted versus Muzz in Texas simply recently.
Shahzad Younas stated that in this new case “the patent itself is rather abstract and generic in nature and explains the approach of matching 2 people in a way that is used in almost each and every single dating app out there. Our company believe we are the first test case/’victim’ to now suffer their lawsuits”.
Read the full Court of Appeal choice here.