Match Group v Muzmatch: ten years of trading side by side didn’t stop a trademark infringement finding
Match GroupvMuzmatch
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Judgment
- 27 April 2023
- Citation
- [2023] EWCA Civ 454
Years of trading side by side without complaints doesn't by itself prove customers aren't confused.
Match Group, owner of Match.com and Tinder, sued Muzmatch, a dating app for Muslim customers, for trademark infringement and passing off. The Court of Appeal upheld the ruling against Muzmatch, rejecting its defence based on ten years of trading alongside Match without complaint.
What happened
Match Group, which owns Match.com, Tinder, OkCupid, Hinge and Plenty of Fish, took action against Muzmatch, a UK dating and matchmaking service aimed at Muslim customers founded in 2011. Match argued the MUZMATCH name, logo and the use of "match" in SEO keywords infringed its MATCH trademarks and amounted to passing off, meaning Muzmatch was unfairly trading on Match's reputation. The High Court agreed. Muzmatch appealed, arguing the judge got the confusion assessment wrong and that honest concurrent use ought to have been accepted as a defence, given over ten years of trading alongside Match with almost no evidence anyone had actually been confused.
What did the court decide in Match Group v Muzmatch?
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It held the trial judge was entitled to find a likelihood of indirect confusion, where consumers might think the two businesses were connected rather than mistaking one for the other, even without direct evidence of confused customers. That's because indirect confusion is hard to spot when businesses trade mainly through websites and apps rather than face to face. The court confirmed that honest concurrent use isn't a stand-alone defence, it's one factor in deciding whether infringement is made out, and can in principle turn early infringing use into lawful use once customers have learned to tell the brands apart. On the facts, Muzmatch hadn't shown that had happened.
What we learned from this
- What I'd take from this is that trading alongside a bigger, similarly named competitor for years without a string of complaints doesn't mean you're in the clear. The court can still find confusion exists, just that it isn't the kind of confusion that generates customer emails. If your name sits close to an established competitor's, it's worth keeping a watching brief on it early. Waiting years to see if complaints turn up isn't evidence that customers can tell you apart. Where a business trades mainly online, indirect confusion (customers assuming a connection rather than mixing the brands up outright) is often the real risk, and it's harder to disprove. Honest concurrent use can help a defence, but only if you can show customers have actually learned to distinguish the two names, not just that nobody's complained.
Things to be aware of
- This case turned on detailed evidential findings about confusion that the judge made at trial; appeal courts are usually reluctant to second-guess that kind of fact-finding unless there's a clear legal error.
- The lack of complaints over ten years wasn't treated as proof there was no confusion, because indirect confusion (assuming a business connection) rarely surfaces as a complaint in online-only trading.
- Honest concurrent use is not a guaranteed shield even after many years of trading; the business relying on it needs to show consumers have genuinely learned to distinguish the two names.
The businesses involved
Match Group, LLC
Owner of online dating services including Tinder, Match.com, OkCupid, Hinge and Plenty of Fish. Brought the trademark infringement and passing off claim.
- Note
- Registered outside the UK
Muzmatch Limited
UK-based operator of an online dating and matchmaking service aimed at Muslim customers, founded in 2011. Later rebranded as Muzz. Defendant and appellant in the case.
What happened next
- The company behind Muzmatch had already rebranded its app as Muzz following the earlier High Court ruling, before the Court of Appeal dismissed its appeal.Source: En
- Match Group had reportedly alleged infringement as early as 2016 and later attempted to acquire Muzmatch before litigation began.Source: Theguardian, April 2022
- The dispute was covered as part of a wider feature describing Muzz's characterisation of the case as a smaller company facing a much larger competitor.Source: Aljazeera, May 2023
- Match Group's 2021 lawsuit sought to stop Muzmatch's continued use of its name and branding.Source: News, February 2021
- The Court of Appeal's decision confirmed the earlier finding that consumers could mistakenly believe Muzmatch, by then rebranded as Muzz, was part of Match Group.Source: Bbc, April 2023
How we can help
If something in this case sounds familiar, talk it through with us. The first call is free for new clients.
This page is for information purposes only and does not constitute trademark advice or guidance. Summary drafted with AI assistance from the published judgment and checked by The Trademark Helpline (how we write these). Judgment: [2023] EWCA Civ 454 on Find Case Law, published under the Open Justice Licence. Company details from Companies House; trademark counts from the UK trademark register. Last reviewed 26 October 2026. Report an error.
