Case Background
Reflex Media, Inc. and Clover8 Investments PTE. LTD. filed a federal trademark infringement lawsuit against SuccessfulMatch.com, Successful Match Canada, Inc., and Qiang (Jason) Du in the Northern District of California on September 11, 2020. The Plaintiffs, operators and trademark owners behind the online dating platform SeekingArrangement.com (now Seeking.com), accused the Defendants of using their federally registered service marks to divert consumers to competing dating websites SugarDaddyMeet.com and MillionaireMatch.com.
Cause
The complaint alleged that the Defendants adopted and used marks identical or nearly identical to the Plaintiffs' registered service marks in website metadata, Google advertisements, social media posts, press releases, and domain names. The Plaintiffs further alleged that the Defendants operated an affiliate program through which hundreds of third-party websites incorporated the Plaintiffs' marks into domain names and website content to redirect internet users to the Defendants' dating platforms. The complaint asserted fourteen causes of action, including ten counts of federal trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1) and § 1125(a) for the marks Seeking Arrangement, Seekingarrangement, Seekingarrangement.Com, Sa, Seeking.Com, Seeking, Mutually Beneficial Relationships, Mutually Beneficial Arrangements, Relationship On Your Terms, And Seeking Millionaire. The complaint also brought claims for contributory trademark infringement, vicarious trademark infringement, federal unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and state unfair competition under California Business and Professions Code § 17200.
Injury
The complaint alleged that the Defendants' use of the Plaintiffs' marks caused consumer confusion, diverted internet traffic and customers away from the Plaintiffs' dating websites, and damaged the Plaintiffs' reputation and goodwill associated with their service marks. The Plaintiffs also alleged that the Defendants' dating services were of substantially inferior quality to the Plaintiffs' Seeking Arrangement platform.
Damages Sought
The Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages up to three times the amount under Section 35(a) of the Lanham Act, statutory damages for counterfeiting under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c), disgorgement of the Defendants' profits, punitive and exemplary damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and pre- and post-judgment interest.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiffs: Reflex Media, Inc. | Clover8 Investments PTE. LTD.
· Counsel for Plaintiffs: Mark L. Smith | Jacob L. Fonnesbeck | Andre Hanson | Patrick T. Hein | Petar Dimitrov Nalbantov | Saul H. Perloff
Defendants: SuccessfulMatch.com and Qiang (Jason) Du
· Counsel for Defendants: Willmore F. Holbrow III | Matthew L. Seror | Glenn P. Zwang | Charles Dana Hobart
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
The complaint alleged that Clover8 Investments PTE. LTD., a Singapore corporation, owned the federally registered service marks at issue, while Reflex Media, Inc., a Nevada corporation, operated the dating websites under those marks as Clover8's exclusive licensee. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants used the marks in metadata keywords on SugarDaddyMeet.com, in Instagram hashtags on the platform's official social media account, in Google search advertisements, and in a press release promoting a Spanish-language version of SugarDaddyMeet.com. The complaint also alleged that after a prior lawsuit filed in the District of Nevada alerted the Defendants to the infringement claims, the Defendants removed the phrase "mutually beneficial relationship" from the SugarDaddyMeet.com homepage and replaced it with "Seeking Secret Mutual Benefits," which the Plaintiffs characterized as a deliberate combination of the Plaintiffs' SEEKING and MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL RELATIONSHIPS marks with a competitor's SECRET BENEFITS mark.
The complaint further alleged that the Defendants' affiliate program functioned as a network of websites that used infringing domain names — such as seekingarrangements.org, seekingarrangementchicago.com, and seekingarrangementcomlogin.com — to funnel internet users to the Defendants' SugarDaddyMeet.com platform. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants exercised nearly total control over these affiliate websites, supplying content, templates, software, payment processing, and customer support, while compensating affiliates with a percentage of revenue generated from referred users.
Defense
SuccessfulMatch.com denied all allegations of infringement and asserted seven affirmative defenses: failure to state sufficient facts to constitute a claim, statute of limitations, estoppel, laches, unclean hands, fair use, and reservation of future defenses. The Defendant admitted that it operated the websites SugarDaddyMeet.com and MillionaireMatch.com, that it offered internet-based dating services to adults, and that it competed with the Plaintiffs in the online dating industry. On its unclean hands defense, the Defendant presented a screenshot of a Google search for "millionairematch.com" that returned a paid advertisement for the Plaintiffs' Seeking.com website, suggesting the Plaintiffs engaged in the same conduct they alleged against the Defendants.
Jury Verdict
On August 27, 2025, the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of Clover8 Investments PTE. LTD. and against SuccessfulMatch.com on all claims that proceeded to trial.
On the question of service mark infringement, the jury found that SuccessfulMatch.com infringed all five of Clover8's service marks that were presented at trial: SEEKING ARRANGEMENT, SEEKINGARRANGEMENT, SEEKINGARRANGEMENT.COM, SEEKING, and SEEKING.COM. The jury found that Qiang (Jason) Du did not personally infringe any of the five marks.
On the question of inducing infringement of service marks, the jury found that SuccessfulMatch.com induced the infringement of all five marks. The jury found that Qiang (Jason) Du did not induce the infringement of any mark.
On the question of contributory infringement of service marks, the jury found that SuccessfulMatch.com contributed to the infringement of all five marks. The jury again found that Qiang (Jason) Du did not contribute to the infringement of any mark.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
