The battle of the dating apps...Tinder sues Bumble!

Match Group, the company that holds a large portfolio of dating services, such as Tinder, Match.com, OkCupid, PlentyOfFish, to name a few, and was in talks last year to purchase the dating service Bumble. Match is still looking to acquire the service, but it’s going about it in an unconventional way: by suing it for patent infringement.

On Friday, Match filed a lawsuit that accuses Bumble of infringing on a pair of patents held by Tinder: one called “Matching Process System and Method,” in which users swipe cards and mutually select one another, as well as “Display Screen or Portion Thereof With a Graphical User Interface of a Mobile Device,” which it describes as an “ornamental aspect” of Tinder’s App. The lawsuit also points to similarities between each companies’ apps, and Bumble’s descriptions of “swiping” run afoul of Tinder’s registered trademarks.

In a statement to The Verge, a Match spokesperson said that the company has “invested significant resources and creative expertise in the development” in its products, and was working to enforce its property rights.

Last November, TechCrunch reported that Bumble had turned down the $450 million offer, but that talks were still ongoing, which could leverage for Match to encourage Bumble to join its portfolio: accept the buyout, and the lawsuit goes away.

The T-Mobile / AT&T battle is heating up! Court rules T-Mobile owns the color magenta.

A squabble over who stole the magic marker seems more fitting for a classroom than a courtroom. But a federal judge has sided with T-Mobile in a recent trademark lawsuit, saying that Aio Wireless, an AT&T subsidiary, isn't allowed to use colors resembling T-Mobile's promotional magenta color.

The Texas court has ordered AT&T to stop using Pantone 676C, a.k.a "plum," over fears that it might cause consumers to confuse the two brands. According to the presiding judge, T-Mobile successfully argued that letting Aio continue to use a variant of magenta would cause it irreparable harm.

In a statement declaring victory, T-Mobile called AT&T's actions a "transparent effort to infringe" and that the court rightfully defended T-Mobile's sole ability to use the color magenta.

A spokesperson for Aio, Alejandra Arango, said the company has already given up using its controversial color of choice.

"While we disagree with the court's decision, it addresses advertising and store designs that we are no longer implementing. Accordingly, this decision has no effect on our advertising plans," Arango said.

T-Mobile's claim stems from its parent company, Deutsche Telekom, which in the 2000s trademarked a pinkish hue known as RAL 4010 for its promotional campaigns. A side-by-side comparison back in August showed that what T-Mobile argues is magenta seemed pretty distinctive from the wine-colored tone that Aio used. In fact, T-Mobile's definition of magenta appears to have expanded beyond its original trademark; rather than owning a specific shade of pink, the company is now claiming nearby colors as well.

With due respect to the importance of trademarks, if there were an Academy Award for silly lawsuits, this one might qualify. After all, few things speak more loudly than price and service quality — characteristics of a business that tend to transcend marketing materials. Promotional colors can engender valuable feelings of trust and loyalty, to be sure. But I'd wager the share of Americans who select their wireless carrier on the basis of their favorite color is pretty small.

Source: The Washington Post