Estta971455 05/05/2019 in the United States Patent And

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Electronic Filing System. http://estta.uspto.gov ESTTA Tracking number: ESTTA971455 Filing date: 05/05/2019

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Proceeding 91230917 Party Defendant RLP Ventures, LLC Correspondence RLP VENTURES LLC Address PO BOX 2605 NEW YORK, NY 10108-2605 UNITED STATES [email protected] no phone number provided

Submission Other Motions/Papers Filer's Name Ramona Prioleau Filer's email [email protected] Signature /Ramona Prioleau/ Date 05/05/2019 Attachments Opposition to Motion and Cross-Motions.pdf(239948 bytes ) Declaration Exhibits.pdf(5761623 bytes ) IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

MATCH GROUP, LLC (successor-in- interest to TINDER, INC.)

Opposer, Opposition No. 91230917 v.

RLP VENTURES, LLC

Applicant.

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND CROSS- MOTIONS TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS AND EXTEND TESTIMONY PERIOD

I. INTRODUCTION

Applicant RLP Ventures, LLC (“Applicant”) hereby responds to and opposes the Motion for Protective Order of Match Group, LLC (“Opposer”). Applicant opposes the Motion for

Protective Order on the grounds that Opposer: (i) lacks standing to make a motion on behalf of the individuals noticed for deposition; (ii) a motion for a protective order is an improper response to a notice of testimonial deposition under Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of

Procedure (“TBMP”) §§ 521 and 526; and (iii) the Opposer has provided misleading information

in its motion for protective order. As a general matter, Applicant opposes the Motion for

Protective Order also on the grounds that Applicant’s Notices of Deposition (i) are clear; (ii)

seek clearly relevant information, that is tied to the specific grounds for opposition asserted by

Opposer; and (iii) are not intended to harass the individuals noticed for deposition. Furthermore,

Applicant’s notices, which set the place for deposition in New York, NY, were provided to the

individuals noticed for deposition as early as March 20, 2019 and the location was not objected

to by their legal representative at that time and Applicant offered to conduct the depositions “at such time and place as may be agreed to by the parties.” Therefore, Applicant’s notices of deposition are proper and the depositions should proceed as noticed.

Separately, Applicant brings this cross-motion to compel the attendance each of the following Match Group, Inc. (“MGI”) individuals:

 Amanda Ginsberg;

 Gary Swidler;

 Alan Spoon;

 Pamela Seymon; and

 Thomas McInerney (each a Deponent and together, “Deponents”).

at their depositions pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Trademark Rules of

Practice and to extend the defendant’s testimonial deadline.

This cross-motion is made necessary due to MGI’s refusal to produce Deponents for their

deposition pursuant to the Notices of Deposition by Written Questions dated March 20, 2019

(See Prioleau Decl. Exs. B-1 – B-5).

The testimonial cutoff in this matter is May 6, 2019 (the next succeeding secular or business day following May 4, 2019). To date, neither the individuals noticed for deposition nor

their publicly-identified legal representative has responded to the Notices of Deposition.

Applicant hereby moves the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) for an

order:

1. Compelling MGI to produce Deponents for their deposition at a place and time

mutually agreed upon by Applicant and MGI and

2. Resetting the defendant’s testimonial cut-off for Applicant to a date 90 days after

the issuance of the order (and resetting subsequent trial dates accordingly) (a) to

allow Applicant the opportunity to attempt to seek the trial testimony of the

individuals noticed by either deposition, declaration or affidavit or to secure the

attendance of the witnesses by subpoena pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 24 and Fed. R.

Civ. P. 45.

In its Motion for Protective Order, Opposer falsely alleges that “Applicant has no legitimate need for the testimony it seeks from Match Group’s “apex” personnel” and Opposer offers misleading factual statements about the nature of the Notices of Deposition. In doing so,

Opposer obscures relevant facts related to Applicant’s attempts to resolve testimonial matters during the Applicant’s testimony period in accordance with TBMP § 703.

As an initial matter, Opposer uses the undefined “Match Group” in its motion, obscuring the fact that the Opposer in this proceeding is Match Group, LLC and the individuals noticed for

deposition relate to the non-party Match Group, Inc. Match Group, LLC and Match Group, Inc.

are two distinctly formed legal entities.

If by its obscure reference to “Match Group’s “apex” personnel,” Opposer is disclosing

material, non-public information that each Deponent is personnel of the Opposer, then Opposer

has arguably exposed MGI to violations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”)

regulations as well as the Nasdaq Listing Rules. Nevertheless, Applicant responds to Opposer’s

Motion for Protective Order based on information in the Declaration of Ramona Prioleau

attached as Attachment A (the “Prioleau Decl.”) that supports Applicant’s Opposition to

Opposer’s Motion for Protective Order and Applicant’s Cross-Motions.

II. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

Pre-Trial Disclosures: On March 20, 2019, Applicant served its Pre-Trial Disclosures, identifying Deponents as individuals likely to have knowledge of information that the Applicant may use to support its claims in the Opposition proceeding. Prioleau Decl. Ex. A.

Notices of Testimonial Deposition: On March 20, 2019, Applicant served upon Jared

Sine, General Counsel and Secretary of Match Group, Inc. and the legal representative of the

Deponents (See Prioleau Decl. Exs. C and W, p. RLP 335, first paragraph), as well as Opposer its Notices of Deposition of each of the Deponents, which were noticed for April 4, 2019. See

Prioleau Decl. Exs. B-1 – B-5 and D.

On March 27, 2019, Opposer sent a letter to Applicant which objected to Applicant’s notices of deposition on the grounds that Applicant’s notices were

per se improper, both in form and substance. They are also abusive, representing the quintessential example of an unjustified attempt to depose “apex witnesses” without cause noting that an undefined “Match Group” would not comply with the Notices. See Prioleau Decl.

Ex. E. Opposer notably did not, however, object to New York, NY as a proper venue for the depositions. Id. Sine, the publicly-disclosed legal representative, did not respond to Applicant’s

Notices of Deposition.

On March 28, 2019, Applicant specifically responded to Opposer’s objections and offered to pursue other options to get the desired testimony. See Prioleau Decl. Ex. F. On April

1, 2019, Opposer offered Evan Bonnstetter as a witness in place of the individuals Applicant noticed for deposition. See Prioleau Decl. Ex. G. On April 2, 2019, Applicant asked Opposer to provide detail of:

 Mr. Bonstetter’s legal authorization to answer on behalf of the individuals that Applicant noticed for deposition and  his knowledge of the subject matter of each of the deposition questions previously submitted.

See Prioleau Decl. Exs. B-1-B-5 and H.

On April 4, 2019, Opposer emailed Applicant regarding Mr. Bonstetter’s background, but failed to provide detail of:

On April 5, 2019, Applicant emailed Opposer and Jared Sine, the publicly-disclosed legal

representative (See Prioleau Decl. Exhibit J), offering its willingness to pursue other options to

get the desired testimony, including affidavits and declarations from the individuals noticed for

deposition that provided testimony related to all of the deposition questions submitted on March

20, 2019 as well as requesting confirmation that:

a. MGI will not comply with Applicant’s Notices of Deposition; b. Mr. Bonnstetter is not: i. Legally authorized to answer Applicant’s deposition questions on behalf of the individuals that Applicant noticed for deposition and ii. Knowledgeable of the subject matter of each of the deposition questions submitted on March 20, 2019. c. MGI will provide Applicant with the name of a deponent that is: i. Legally authorized to answer Applicant’s deposition questions on behalf of the individuals that Applicant noticed for deposition and ii. Knowledgeable of the subject matter of each of the deposition questions submitted on March 20, 2019.

On April 8, 2019, Opposer emailed Applicant its contention that the Notices of

Deposition were improper and again failed to offer a witness in place of the individuals

Applicant noticed for deposition that was legally authorized to speak on said individuals behalf or knowledgeable of the subject matter of the deposition questions. See Prioleau Decl. Ex. K.

Sine, the publicly-disclosed legal representative, did not respond to Applicant’s April 5, 2019 email.

On April 8, 2019, Applicant emailed Opposer’s Attorney requesting clarification of said attorney’s representation of MGI and the individuals noticed for deposition. See Prioleau Decl.

Ex. L.

On April 10, 2019, Opposer emailed Applicant stating that “these individuals are officers and employees of party-Opponent Match Group.” See Prioleau Decl. Ex. M.

On April 12, 2019, Applicant emailed Opposer’s Attorney requesting the names of the

officers and employees of party-opponent, Match Group, LLC that were among the individuals

noticed for deposition as well as any update to the legal representative for the individuals noticed

for deposition. See Prioleau Decl. Ex. N.

On April 18, 2019, Applicant emailed Opposer explaining that the Notices of Deposition

are proper; that the individuals noticed for deposition have unique, first-hand knowledge of the

subject matter of each of the deposition questions submitted on March 20, 2019; and reiterated

its willingness to pursue other options to get the desired testimony. See Prioleau Decl. Ex. O.

On April 18, 2019, Applicant emailed Jared Sine, the publicly-disclosed legal

representative and copied Opposer (See Prioleau Decl. Ex. P), offering to resolve the outstanding

testimonial depositions and requesting that Mr. Sine provide Applicant with the contact

information for any designated outside counsel to handle matters related to the individuals

noticed for deposition. Jared Sine, the publicly-disclosed legal representative, did not respond to

Applicant’s April 18, 2019 email.

On April 19, 2019, Opposer’s Attorney emailed Applicant confirming that it was counsel

of record for Match Group, LLC, including its employees, and refusing make the noticed

witnesses available for deposition. Opposer’s Attorney did not confirm that it was counsel for

MGI or the individuals noticed for deposition. See Prioleau Decl. Ex. Q.

On April 19, 2019, Applicant emailed Opposer’s Attorney disputing various false claims

made by Opposer. See Prioleau Decl. Ex. R.

Neither Opposer, nor Jared Sine, the publicly-disclosed legal representative, filed a motion to quash the Notices of Deposition in accordance with TBMP § 521. Applicant did not withdraw the Notices of Deposition.

III. ARGUMENT

Opposer lacks standing to object to the notices of deposition of a non-party. The

Supreme Court in Lexmark Internat’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 1377,

1386 (2014) explained that there is an “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing.” Id. A court has subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate a plaintiff’s claims only if the plaintiff has

“suffered or [is] imminently threatened with a concrete and particularized ‘injury in fact’ that is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Id.

Here, there is no such “injury in fact.” Instead, the individuals noticed for deposition have unique, first-hand knowledge of the subject matter of each of the deposition questions submitted on March 20, 2019. The individuals noticed for deposition approved public solicitations that describe Applicant’s business as a dating product or service. The responses to the submitted deposition questions are central to Applicant’s trial testimony in the instant proceeding. Moreover, the responses to the submitted deposition questions are directly related to

DuPont factors 1 through 4. As the Board examines the likelihood of confusion between

Applicant’s and Opposer’s marks, the testimony of the individuals noticed for deposition will provide the Board with a complete picture on which to render its trial opinion.

While Opposer offered Mr. Bonstetter as a witness in place of the individuals Applicant noticed for deposition, as discussed above, Opposer failed to confirm that Mr. Bonstetter was:

upon which the deposition questions related to Applicant’s business as a dating product or

service are based. See Prioleau Decl. Ex. U, RLP-275.

Instead, the Deponents are signatories to the Form 10-K. Id. In addition, Deponents

Ginsberg and Swidler have certified in MGI’s annual report filed February 28, 2019 that it is a provider of subscription dating products, including Tinder. See Prioleau Decl. Ex. U, RLP-280 –

281. These certifications are made pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, including Section 906 thereof that provides for criminal penalties for certifying a misleading or fraudulent financial report that can be upwards of $5 million in fines and 20 years in prison, making Deponents

Ginsberg and Swidler highly motivated to speak to the true nature of Applicant’s business.

With respect to Deponents Alan Spoon, Pamela Seymon; and Thomas McInerney, all three serve on MGI’s audit committee and according to MGI’s audit committee charter these three are charged with providing assistance to the Board in relation to MGI’s financial matters.

See Prioleau Decl. Ex. V, RLP-300. Purportedly non-executive directors, these Deponents interface with company management and the external auditors as well as monitor the integrity of

MGI’s financial statements, among other matters. Id. These Deponents are uniquely-suited to provide first-hand knowledge and perspective regarding MGI’s financial expenditures related to

Applicant’s business as a dating product or service.

Based on public disclosures of MGI, the individuals notice for deposition are not personnel of the Opposer (See Prioleau Decl. Exs. S, T and V, pages RLP 294, 297 (first full paragraph), and 298 (second paragraph)).

Unless and until Opposer establishes standing to file a motion for protective order in

MGI’s name, Opposer’s instant motion is a nullity. Applicant repeatedly asked Opposer

Attorney whether it represented the individuals noticed for deposition (See Prioleau Decl. Exs. L,

N and R). Despite those numerous requests, neither Opposer, nor its attorney clearly stated that either had the authority to represent the interests of the individuals noticed for deposition or MGI

(See Prioleau Decl. Exs. M and Q). On April 18, 2019, Applicant also contacted Jared Sine, the publicly-disclosed legal representative for matters related to MGI, requesting that Mr. Sine provide Applicant with the contact information for any designated outside counsel to handle

matters related to the individuals noticed for deposition. See Prioleau Decl. Ex. P. Jared Sine did

not respond to Applicant’s April 18, 2019 email.

Opposer’s objection that Applicant has no legitimate need for the testimony it seeks

from the individuals noticed for deposition is baseless. As noted above, Opposer contention is

untrue due to the individuals noticed for deposition having unique, first-hand knowledge of the

subject matter of each of the deposition questions submitted on March 20, 2019 and Applicant

incorporates the above arguments as though they were fully stated here. Furthermore, in

accordance with the TBMP, Applicant has contacted the legal representative for the individuals

noticed for deposition, Jared Sine, on April 5 and April 18, 2019 to explore alternative means to

get the desired testimony. Mr. Sine failed to respond, necessitating the below Cross-Motions.

Applicant has requested testimony on the use of Opposer’s Mark as a dating product or

service. All of these requests are relevant to establishing how the Opposer has used the

Opposer’s Mark and solicited business in relation thereto. As noted above, the individuals noticed for deposition have signed MGI’s Form 10-K that describes the Applicant’s business as a dating product or service on the pain of securities liability. See Prioleau Decl. Ex. U, RLP-275.

Applicant’s deposition notices are proper. Rule 2.120(a) of the Trademark Rules of

Practice “provides that mere notice alone is sufficient to secure the attendance of a party for the taking of his discovery deposition.” See Consol. Foods Corp., 189 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) ¶ 582 (P.T.O.

Mar. 5, 1976); see also TBMP § 404.03(a)(1) (stating that “the deposition [of a party] may be taken on notice alone.”). TBMP § 404.06(b) states that the deposition of an organization may be made consistent with Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6).

A motion for a protective order is an improper response to a notice of testimonial deposition. Pursuant to the TBMP § 521, in the case of a notice of discovery deposition and under appropriate circumstances, the party may file a motion for a protective order. Separately,

TBMP § 526 provides that:

Upon motion by a party obligated to make initial disclosures or expert testimony disclosure or from whom discovery is sought, and for good cause, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board may make any order which justice requires to protect a party from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.

Here, the Applicant served notices of testimonial deposition and not discovery depositions. In addition, Applicant’s testimonial deposition questions are not meant to annoy, embarrass, oppress, or unduly burden or expense, but instead they relate directly to DuPont

Factors 1 through 4 and draw upon public disclosures approved by the individuals noticed for deposition. (See Prioleau Decl. Exs. B-1 – B-5).

MGI Should be Compelled to Produce Deponents for Deposition.

A. MGI’s REFUSAL TO PRODUCE DEPONENTS FOR DEPOSITIONS WERE

COMPLETELY WITHOUT LEGAL MERIT

It has long been held that absent a court order preventing the taking of depositions, the depositions should go forward. Even the filing of a motion for a protective order would not stay the deposition. Only a properly issued court order has that effect. This issue was addressed in

Pioche Mines Consol., Inc. v. Dolman, 333 F. 2d 257 (9th Cir. 1964). In discussing the effect of the mere filing of a motion for a protective upon the taking of a scheduled deposition, the court stated:

“Counsel’s view seems to be that a party need not appear if a motion under Rule 30(b), F.R.Civ.P. is on file, even though it has not been acted upon. Any such rule would be an intolerable clog upon the discovery process. Rule 30(b) places the burden on the proposed deponent to get an order, not just to make a motion. And if there is not time to have his motion heard, the least that he can be expected to do is to get an order postponing the time of the deposition until his motion can be heard. He might also appear and seek to adjourn the deposition until an order can be obtained. (Rule 30(d)). But unless he has obtained a court order that postpones or dispenses with his duty to appear, that duty remains. Otherwise, as this case shows, a proposed deponent, by merely filing motions under Rule 30(b), could evade giving his deposition indefinitely. Under the Rules, it is for the court, not the deponent or his counsel, to relieve him of the duty to appear.

Id. at 269.

This rule was made “crystal clear· by the court in F.A.A. v. Landy 705 F. 2d 624 (2d Cir.

1983), where the court stated:

“It is clear, however, that it is not the filing of such a motion (motion for a protective order) that stays the deposition, but rather a court order.”

Id. at 634.

MGI’s counsel, failed to produce Deponents for the scheduled deposition, which is the subject matter of this cross-motion. At the time of its action, MGI’s counsel did not have any

Board order preventing the taking of Deponents’ depositions. At no time, between the time of the

11 scheduling of the deposition and the scheduled deposition date, did MGI’s counsel file a motion to quash the Notices of Deposition or appear at the scheduled deposition and seek to adjourn the depositions until an order can be obtained. The Board should rule on the instant cross-motion to compel the depositions of Deponents.

These facts clearly show that MGI’s counsel, without any proper legal basis whatsoever, failed to produce Deponents for the depositions. In no way can this action be defended. This obstructionist conduct should not be condoned. And, if as Opposer’s Attorney claims, the individuals noticed for deposition are personnel of the Opposer, the Board should sanction

Opposer to deter such meritless tactics and behavior for its refusal to make the Deponents available for the noticed depositions.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the Board should issue an order granting Applicant the relief requested relating to its testimony period.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: May 5, 2019 By: /Ramona Prioleau/

Ramona Prioleau RLP Ventures, LLC Times Square Station P.O. Box 2605 New York, NY 10108-2605 [email protected]

APPLICANT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of this foregoing Opposition to Motion for Protective Order and Cross-Motions to Compel Depositions and Extend Testimony Period was served by email and to the attorney for the Deponents on the date listed below:

Jared Sine General Counsel Match Group, Inc. 8750 North Central Expressway, Suite 1400 Dallas, Texas 75231 [email protected]

I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of this foregoing Opposition to Motion for Protective Order and Cross-Motions to Compel Depositions and Extend Testimony Period was served by email to the attorney for the Opposer on the date listed below:

Jonathan D. Reichman, Esq. Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Dated: May 5, 2019 By: /Ramona Prioleau/ Ramona Prioleau

RAMONA PRIOLEAU DECLARATION

ATTACHMENT A

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

MATCH GROUP, LLC (successor-in- interest to TINDER, INC.)

Opposer, Opposition No. 91230917 v.

RLP VENTURES, LLC

Applicant.

Declaration of Ramona Prioleau

I, Ramona Prioleau, declare under penalty of perjury as follows:

1. I am over the age of eighteen and competent to make this Declaration.

2. I am the founder and representative of Applicant (RLP Ventures, LLC). In my position, I am authorized to assert to and confirm the activities and beliefs of Applicant.

3. I make this declaration on the basis of my own personal knowledge and in support of Applicant’s Opposition to Opposer’s Motion for Protective Order and Applicant’s Cross-

Motions to Compel Depositions and Extend Testimony Period.

4. I verify that Applicant is the owner and operator of an ecosystem under the

POLITICAL TINDER mark that is the subject of Opposition No. 91230917.

5. On March 20, 2019, Applicant served its Pre-Trial Disclosures, identifying the following witnesses that Applicant expects to present: (a) Ramona Prioleau, Owner of RLP

Ventures, LLC; (b) Amanda W. Ginsberg. Chief Executive Officer of Match Group, Inc.

(“MGI”) ; (c) Gary Swidler, Chief Financial Officer of MGI; (d) Alan G. Spoon, Member of the Board of Directors of MGI; (e) Pamela S. Seymon, Member of the Board of Directors of MGI; and (f) Thomas J. McInerney, Member of the Board of Directors of MGI. A true and correct copy of a printout can be found in Exhibit A.

6. On March 20, 2019, Applicant served Notices of Deposition for each of (a)

Amanda W. Ginsberg; (b) Gary Swidler; (c) Alan G. Spoon; (d) Pamela S. Seymon; and (e)

Thomas J. McInerney (A true and correct copy of a printout can be found in Exhibits B-1 – B-5)

on Jared Sine, General Counsel and Secretary for MGI and the publicly-disclosed legal

representative (A true and correct copy of a printout can be found in Exhibit C (emphasis

added)), setting the deposition date and time for Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 10:00 am in New

York, NY. Applicant emailed Opposer a copy of said Notices of Deposition. A true and correct

copy of a printout can be found in Exhibit D.

7. On March 27, 2019, Opposer responded to Applicant’s Notices of Deposition,

stating among other matters its contention that the Notices were improper and that “Match

Group” would not comply with the Notices. A true and correct copy of a printout can be found in

Exhibit E. Jared Sine, the publicly-disclosed legal representative, did not respond to Applicant’s

Notices of Deposition.

8. On March 28, 2019, Applicant emailed Opposer its willingness to defend its

Notices of Deposition and also informed Opposer of its willingness to pursue other options to get

the desired testimony. A true and correct copy of a printout can be found in Exhibit F.

9. On April 1, 2019, Opposer offered Evan Bonnstetter as a witness in place of the

individuals Applicant noticed for deposition. A true and correct copy of a printout can be found

in Exhibit G. Jared Sine, the publicly-disclosed legal representative, did not offer a witness in place of the individuals Applicant noticed for deposition.

10. On April 2, 2019, the Applicant emailed Opposer asking Opposer to confirm (a)

Mr. Bonstetter’s legal authorization to answer on behalf of the individuals that Applicant noticed for deposition and (b) his knowledge of the subject matter of each of the deposition questions previously submitted. A true and correct copy of a printout can be found in Exhibits B-1-B-5 and H.

11. On April 4, 2019, Opposer emailed Applicant regarding with Mr. Bonstetter’s background, but failed to confirm (a) Mr. Bonstetter’s legal authorization to answer on behalf of the individuals that Applicant noticed for deposition and (b) his knowledge of the subject matter of each of the deposition questions previously submitted. A true and correct copy of a printout can be found in Exhibit I. Jared Sine, the publicly-disclosed legal representative, did not offer a witness in place of the individuals Applicant noticed for deposition.

12. On April 5, 2019, Applicant emailed Opposer and Jared Sine, the publicly-

disclosed legal representative (A true and correct copy of a printout can be found in Exhibit J),

offering its willingness to pursue other options to get the desired testimony, including affidavits

and declarations from the individuals that Applicant noticed for deposition that provide

testimony related to all of the deposition questions submitted on March 20, 2019 as well as

requesting confirmation that:

13. On April 8, 2019, Opposer emailed Applicant its contention that the Notices were improper and again failed to offer a witness in place of the individuals Applicant noticed for deposition that was legally authorized to speak on said individuals behalf or knowledgeable of the subject matter of the deposition questions. A true and correct copy of a printout can be found in Exhibit K.

14. On April 8, 2019, Applicant emailed Opposer’s Attorney requesting clarification of its representation of MGI and the individuals noticed for deposition. A true and correct copy of a printout can be found in Exhibit L.

15. On April 10, 2019, Opposer emailed Applicant stating that “these individuals are officers and employees of party-Opponent Match Group.” A true and correct copy of a printout can be found in Exhibit M.

16. On April 12, 2019, Applicant emailed Opposer’s Attorney requesting the names

of the officers and employees of party-opponent, Match Group, LLC that were among the

individuals noticed for deposition as well as any update to the legal representative for the

individuals noticed for deposition. A true and correct copy of a printout can be found in Exhibit

17. On April 18, 2019, Applicant emailed Opposer explaining that the Notices of

Deposition are proper; that the individuals noticed for deposition have unique, first-hand knowledge of the subject matter of each of the deposition questions submitted on March 20,

2019; and reiterated its willingness to pursue other options to get the desired testimony. Exhibit

18. On April 18, 2019, Applicant emailed Jared Sine, the publicly-disclosed legal representative and copied Opposer (A true and correct copy of a printout can be found in Exhibit

P), offering to resolve the outstanding testimonial depositions and requesting that Mr. Sine provide Applicant with the contact information for any designated outside counsel to handle matters related to the individuals noticed for deposition. Jared Sine, the publicly-disclosed legal representative, did not respond to Applicant’s April 18, 2019 email.

19. On April 19, 2019, Opposer’s Attorney emailed Applicant confirming that it was counsel of record for Match Group, LLC, including its employees, and refusing make the noticed witnesses available for deposition. Opposer’s Attorney did not confirm that it was counsel for

MGI or the individuals noticed for deposition. A true and correct copy of a printout can be found in Exhibit Q.

20. On April 19, 2019, Applicant emailed Opposer Attorney disputing various false claims made by Opposer. A true and correct copy of a printout can be found in Exhibit R.

21. Attached as Exhibit S (emphasis added) is true and correct copy of a printout of

Amanda W. Ginsberg’s employment agreement with MGI https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1575189/000157518918000047/mtch8- k20180726ex101.htm

22. Attached as Exhibit T (emphasis added) is true and correct copy of a printout of

Gary Swidler’s employment agreement with MGI https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1575189/000157518918000056/mtch8- k20180814ex101.htm

23. Attached as Exhibit U is true and correct copy of a printout of MGI’s Form-10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 http://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-

0001575189/76f700ec-198b-4870-a18c-4d107a1910d9.pdf

24. Attached as Exhibit V is true and correct copy of a printout of MGI’s Schedule

14A filed April 30, 2019 http://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001575189/6ad7e8e2-

8654-438d-bcff-d920e29ec434.pdf

25. Attached as Exhibit W (emphasis added) is true and correct copy of a printout of the Amended And Restated By-Laws Of Match Group, Inc. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1575189/000110465915081175/a15-

23820_4ex3d2.htm

The undersigned, being hereby warned that willful false statements and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and that such willful false statements may jeopardize the validity of the current cancellation proceeding, declares that all statements made of his or her own knowledge are true and that statements made on information are believed to be true.

Dated: May 5, 2019 By: /Ramona Prioleau/

Ramona Prioleau Founder

DECLARATION OF RAMONA PRIOLEAU

EXHIBIT A

RLP 1

%&'()%&* ! " #$ R ! O P-./.0 $#1#$21./# '3$(4-51$##4 # 1(*5'&'& $1$6-#'3$( -4##67$#4 6- $#8#/-$ 1 $.# #7140$-$ #$0$/ #$0 ###/40 $-09 R

: #$; 9 $0$ #$ 64 ! 0"2$"$ <;'3)= 6>8 >&)&)?'3)= %&*%3)%3%( ".@9 6$141A 4411 #$R0$8A 00$6--1 $7$17 #$R0$8 #$R -0$8$1- 90$1$:.7-4; 444$- OP?*=)-$#; 6$/ "&C)) $##$ ;$ *='(& '&C=*3%(=' ".@9 R $14$$#$0-4 ; 444 R $0 $/ .7

RLP 2

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

RLP 3

'/$1$##6$##1./ (/0 $-0$1.$#6$$/ ! !"# $#%$# $#$9 & 4: #$; $: & 0$1$:.7A ' $/"61#A ( #$" A C $0#$""/0A$1 = -0$E/ % ' & ( #$ -7-$01 -#4 #$R$1 #$R6 14$4-1 1$#-7- 1 /-6-7-- 4- 17 ' )# $ $19$-') ')&% 8 >&)&)?'3)= # ##F70$#0 %&*%3)%3%(

RLP 4

' -./4/-$$$1$$ /4 #$R#'3 $## 6$ 1./0$#-$/4- -1$#1.#69 E$-$-0$ 2 16G- @-0$FG0 @.H8FG0 018/F8/0 $19$-') ')&%

RLP 5 DECLARATION OF RAMONA PRIOLEAU

EXHIBIT B-1

RLP 6 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

MATCH GROUP, LLC (successor-in-interest to TINDER, INC.)

Opposer,

Opposition No. 91230917 v.

RLP VENTURES, LLC

Applicant.

NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION OF AMANDA W. GINSBERG UPON WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Please take notice that, pursuant to Trademark Rule 2.124, 37 C.F.R. § 2.124, and Rule

28 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Applicant RLP Ventures, LLC (“Applicant”), will take the testimonial deposition on written questions of

Amanda W. Ginsberg. Chief Executive Officer of Match Group, Inc., c/o Jared Sine,

General Counsel, Match Group, Inc., 8750 North Central Expressway, Suite 1400,

Dallas, Texas 75231 in connection with the above-captioned proceeding. The deposition will commence on Thursday,

April 4, 2019 at 10:00 am at TSG Reporting, Inc., 747 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, or at such time and place as may be agreed to by the parties. The deposition will continue thereafter until completed.

The deposition will be taken before a person authorized to administer oaths in the jurisdiction where the deposition is to be held from the office of TSG Reporting, Inc. Further, pursuant to Rule 2.124(b)(1) of the Trademark Rules of Practice, copies of Applicant’s direct

RLP 7 questions are attached to Opposer’s copy of this notice as well as that of Deponent’s attorney, but not to the copy filed with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Applicant reserves the right to use any information produced through the deposition process in evidence at trial or for other such purposes as may be permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal

Rules of the Evidence, and/or the rules of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: March 20, 2019 By: /Ramona Prioleau/

Ramona Prioleau RLP Ventures, LLC Times Square Station P.O. Box 2605 New York, NY 10108-2605 [email protected]

APPLICANT

RLP 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of this foregoing Notice to Take Deposition upon Written Questions was served by email to the attorney for the Opposer on the date listed below:

Jonathan D. Reichman, Esq. Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of this foregoing Notice to Take Deposition upon Written Questions was served by email and United States Postal Service to the attorney for the Deponent on the date listed below:

Jared Sine General Counsel Match Group, Inc. 8750 North Central Expressway, Suite 1400 Dallas, Texas 75231 [email protected]

Dated: March 20, 2019 By: /Ramona Prioleau/ Ramona Prioleau

RLP 9 Written Deposition Questions Amanda W. Ginsberg – April 4, 2019

Question 1. What is your name? A.

Question 2. What is your home address? A.

Question 3. Do you understand that you are testifying under oath today as though testifying before an open court? A.

Question 4. Is there any reason why you cannot answer questions fully and truthfully today? A.

Question 5. Are you taking any medication or under the influence of any substance that would impair your ability to testify today? A.

Question 6. You may object to a question, but after the objection is stated, unless the objection concerns the attorney client privilege, you must answer the question. The court reporter will take down your verbal answers only. So it is important that you speak slowly and clearly so the record is clear. Do you understand why you are here today? A.

Question 7. Do you understand you are here to provide trial testimony in the matter of MATCH GROUP, LLC versus RLP Ventures, LLC, Opposition No. 91230917 presently pending before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board? A.

RLP 10 Question 8. Do you understand that you are here to provide your personal testimony regarding the issues related to this proceeding? A.

Question 9. Have you ever been deposed before? A.

Question 10. Have you spoken to anyone about today's deposition? A.

Question 11. Have you reviewed any documents in preparation for this deposition? A.

Question 12. So since high school, can you list or identify each educational institution you attended? A.

Question 13. Can you identify any degree, license, or certification that you received at each education institution mentioned previously? A.

Question 14. While at each school mentioned previously, what was your major? A.

Question 15. Since high school. Starting in chronological order with your first job after graduating high school, describe each job for which you were paid a wage? A.

Question 16. To confirm, are you the Chief Executive Officer of Match Group, Inc.? A.

RLP 11

Question 17. As Chief Executive Officer of Match Group, Inc., are you familiar with the operations of Match Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries? A.

Question 18. Is Match Group, Inc. a company that is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission? A.

Question 19. Would you consider yourself experienced or knowledgeable in complying with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as it relates to Match Group, Inc.’s Form 10-K? A.

Question 20. I refer you to Attachment A which is a true and correct copy of Match Group, Inc.’s Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 as downloaded from http://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001575189/76f700ec-198b-4870-a18c- 4d107a1910d9.pdf, do you recognize Attachment A as a copy of the Form 10-K of Match Group, Inc. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018? A.

Question 21. I refer you to Attachment A, Exhibit 21.1. On the second page of Exhibit 21.1, the second line, do you recognize the name of the entity, Match Group, LLC, as a subsidiary of Match Group, Inc.? A.

Question 22. To your knowledge, what business does Match Group, LLC engage in? A.

Question 23. I refer you to Attachment A, Exhibit 31.1, entitled “Certification”. Do you recognize the Certification in Exhibit 31.1? A.

RLP 12

Question 24. I refer you to Attachment A, Exhibit 31.1, entitled “Certification”. Are you the “Amanda W. Ginsberg” referred to in the Certification in Exhibit 31.1? A.

Question 25. I refer you to Attachment A, Exhibit 31.1, entitled “Certification”. To your knowledge, was the Certification in Exhibit 31.1 true and accurate as of February 28, 2019, the date the Certification was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission? A.

Question 26. I refer you to Attachment A, Exhibit 31.1, entitled “Certification”. To your knowledge, is the Certification in Exhibit 31.1 true and accurate as of today’s date? A.

Question 27. I refer you to Attachment A, Exhibit 31.1, entitled “Certification”. Did you authorize the electronic signing of your name on the Certification in Exhibit 31.1? A.

Question 28. I refer you to Attachment A, Exhibit 32.1, entitled “Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002”. Do you recognize the certification in Exhibit 32.1? A.

Question 29. I refer you to Attachment A, Exhibit 32.1, entitled “Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002”. Are you the “Amanda W. Ginsberg” referred to in the Certification in Exhibit 32.1? A.

Question 30. I refer you to Attachment A, Exhibit 32.1, entitled “Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002”. To your knowledge, was the Certification in Exhibit 32.1 true and accurate as of

RLP 13 February 28, 2019, the date the Certification was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission? A.

Question 31. I refer you to Attachment A, Exhibit 32.1, entitled “Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002”. To your knowledge, is the Certification in Exhibit 32.1 true and accurate as of today’s date? A.

Question 32. I refer you to Attachment A, Exhibit 32.1, entitled “Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002”. Did you authorize the electronic signing of your name on the Certification in Exhibit 32.1? A.

Question 33. I refer you to Attachment A, page 106, the section entitled “Signatures.” With reference to the “Amanda W. Ginsberg” line, are you the “Amanda W. Ginsberg” referred to on the Signature page of Match Group, Inc.’s Form 10-K, page 106? A.

Question 34. I refer you to Attachment A, page 106, the section entitled “Signatures.” With reference to the “Amanda W. Ginsberg” line, did you authorize the electronic signing of your name on Match Group, Inc.’s Form 10-K, page 106? A.

Question 35. I refer you to Attachment A, page 3, Part I, Item 1 Business, Who we are. The first paragraph reads: Match Group, Inc. is a leading provider of dating products available in over 40 languages to our users all over the world through applications and websites we own and operate. We operate a portfolio of brands, including Tinder, Match,

RLP 14 PlentyOfFish, Meetic, OkCupid, OurTime, Pairs and Hinge, as well as a number of other brands, each designed to increase our users’ likelihood of finding a meaningful connection. Through our portfolio of trusted brands, we provide tailored products to meet the varying preferences of our users. To your knowledge, was that paragraph true and accurate as of February 28, 2019, the date the Form 10-K was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission? A.

Question 36. I refer you to Attachment A, page 3, Part I, Item 1 Business, Who we are. The first paragraph reads: Match Group, Inc. is a leading provider of dating products available in over 40 languages to our users all over the world through applications and websites we own and operate. We operate a portfolio of brands, including Tinder, Match, PlentyOfFish, Meetic, OkCupid, OurTime, Pairs and Hinge, as well as a number of other brands, each designed to increase our users’ likelihood of finding a meaningful connection. Through our portfolio of trusted brands, we provide tailored products to meet the varying preferences of our users. To your knowledge, is that paragraph true and accurate as of today’s date? A.

Question 37. To your knowledge, is the description of Match Group, Inc. as a “leading provider of dating products available in over 40 languages to our users all over the world through applications and websites we own and operate” in Attachment A, page 3, “Part I, Item 1 Business, Who we are” a material fact about Match Group, Inc.? A.

Question 38. Again referring to Attachment A, page 3, “Part I, Item 1 Business, Who we are,” do you recognize the brand referred to in that paragraph as Tinder? A.

Question 39. To your knowledge, is Tinder a dating product?

RLP 15 A.

Question 40. To your knowledge, is Tinder a politics service? A.

Question 41. To your knowledge, is Tinder advertised to consumers as a dating product? A.

Question 42. To your knowledge, is Tinder advertised to consumers as a politics service? A.

Question 43. To your knowledge, does Tinder plan to become a politics service? A.

Question 44. To your knowledge, has Match Group, Inc. disclosed to the Securities and Exchange Commission that Tinder is a dating product? A.

Question 45. To your knowledge, has Match Group, Inc. disclosed to the Securities and Exchange Commission that Tinder is a politics service? A.

Question 46. To your knowledge, has Match Group, Inc. disclosed to the public that Tinder is a dating product? A.

Question 47. To your knowledge, has Match Group, Inc. disclosed to the public that Tinder is a politics service? A.

RLP 16 Question 48. I refer you to Attachment A, page 37, the section entitled “Results of Operations for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016.” With reference to the line items detailed in the Results of Operations for each year, are the results of operations for the Tinder brand included in the data on page 37 of Attachment A? A.

Question 49. I refer you to Attachment A, page 37, the section entitled “Results of Operations for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016.” With reference to the “Total Revenue” line item, what percentage of the 2018 revenue number relates to Match Group, Inc.’s dating products? A.

Question 50. I refer you to Attachment A, page 37, the section entitled “Results of Operations for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016.” With reference to the “Total Revenue” line item, the amount of Total Revenue for 2018 is stated as $1,729,850. What percentage of that 2018 Total Revenue number relates to Match Group, Inc.’s politics service? A.

Question 51. I refer you to Attachment A, page 37, the section entitled “Results of Operations for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016.” With reference to the “Total Revenue” line item, what percentage of the 2018 revenue number relates to Tinder’s dating product? A.

Question 52. I refer you to Attachment A, page 37, the section entitled “Results of Operations for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016.” With reference to the “Total Revenue” line item, the amount of Total Revenue for 2018 is stated as $1,729,850. What percentage of that 2018 Total Revenue number relates to Tinder’s politics service? A.

Question 53. I refer you to Attachment A, page 37, the section entitled “Results of Operations for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016.” With reference to the “Total Revenue”

RLP 17 line item, the amount in 2017 is $ 1,330,661. What percentage of that 2017 revenue number relates to Match Group, Inc.’s dating products? A.

Question 54. I refer you to Attachment A, page 37, the section entitled “Results of Operations for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016.” With reference to the “Total Revenue” line item, the amount in 2017 is $ 1,330,661. What percentage of that revenue number relates to Match Group, Inc.’s politics service? A.

Question 55. I refer you to Attachment A, page 37, the section entitled “Results of Operations for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016.” With reference to the “Total Revenue” line item, the amount in 2017 is $ 1,330,661. What percentage of that 2017 revenue number relates to Tinder’s dating product? A.

Question 56. I refer you to Attachment A, page 37, the section entitled “Results of Operations for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016.” With reference to the “Total Revenue” line item, the amount in 2017 is $ 1,330,661. What percentage of that revenue number relates to Tinder’s politics service? A.

Question 57. I refer you to Attachment A, page 37, the section entitled “Results of Operations for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016.” With reference to the “Total Revenue” line item, the amount in 2016 is $ 1,118,110. What percentage of that revenue number relates to Match Group, Inc.’s dating products? A.

Question 58. I refer you to Attachment A, page 37, the section entitled “Results of Operations for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016.” With reference to the “Total Revenue”

RLP 18 line item, the amount in 2016 is $ 1,118,110. What percentage of that revenue number relates to Match Group, Inc.’s politics service? A.

Question 59. I refer you to Attachment A, page 37, the section entitled “Results of Operations for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016.” With reference to the “Total Revenue” line item, the amount in 2016 is $ 1,118,110. What percentage of that 2016 revenue number relates to Tinder’s dating product? A.

Question 60. I refer you to Attachment A, page 37, the section entitled “Results of Operations for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016.” With reference to the “Total Revenue” line item, the amount in 2016 is $ 1,118,110. What percentage of that revenue number relates to Tinder’s politics service? A.

Question 61. With regards to the answers provided during this deposition, are there any documents that support any of your answers to the questions asked today? If so, what are those documents? A.

CONCLUSION

RLP 19 DECLARATION OF RAMONA PRIOLEAU

EXHIBIT B-2

RLP 20 IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

MATCH GROUP, LLC (successor-in-interest to TINDER, INC.)

Opposer,

Opposition No. 91230917 v.

RLP VENTURES, LLC

Applicant.

NOTICE TO TAKE DEPOSITION OF GARY SWIDLER UPON WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Please take notice that, pursuant to Trademark Rule 2.124, 37 C.F.R. § 2.124, and Rule

28 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Applicant RLP Ventures, LLC (“Applicant”), will take the testimonial deposition on written questions of

Gary Swidler. Chief Financial Officer of Match Group, Inc., c/o Jared Sine, General

Counsel, Match Group, Inc., 8750 North Central Expressway, Suite 1400, Dallas, Texas

75231 in connection with the above-captioned proceeding. The deposition will commence on Thursday,

RLP 21 questions are attached to Opposer’s copy of this notice as well as that of Deponent’s attorney, but not to the copy filed with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Applicant reserves the right to use any information produced through the deposition process in evidence at trial or for other such purposes as may be permitted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal

Rules of the Evidence, and/or the rules of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: March 20, 2019 By: /Ramona Prioleau/

Ramona Prioleau RLP Ventures, LLC Times Square Station P.O. Box 2605 New York, NY 10108-2605 [email protected]

APPLICANT

RLP 22 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of this foregoing Notice to Take Deposition upon Written Questions was served by email to the attorney for the Opposer on the date listed below:

Jonathan D. Reichman, Esq. Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

Jared Sine General Counsel Match Group, Inc. 8750 North Central Expressway, Suite 1400 Dallas, Texas 75231 [email protected]

Dated: March 20, 2019 By: /Ramona Prioleau/ Ramona Prioleau

RLP 23 Written Deposition Questions Gary Swidler – April 4, 2019

Question 1. What is your name? A.

Question 2. What is your home address? A.

Question 3. Do you understand that you are testifying under oath today as though testifying before an open court? A.

Question 4. Is there any reason why you cannot answer questions fully and truthfully today? A.

Question 5. Are you taking any medication or under the influence of any substance that would impair your ability to testify today? A.

RLP 24 Question 8. Do you understand that you are here to provide your personal testimony regarding the issues related to this proceeding? A.

Question 9. Have you ever been deposed before? A.

Question 10. Have you spoken to anyone about today's deposition? A.

Question 11. Have you reviewed any documents in preparation for this deposition? A.

Question 12. So since high school, can you list or identify each educational institution you attended? A.

Question 13. Can you identify any degree, license, or certification that you received at each education institution mentioned previously? A.

Question 14. While at each school mentioned previously, what was your major? A.

Question 15. Since high school. Starting in chronological order with your first job after graduating high school, describe each job for which you were paid a wage? A.

Question 16. To confirm, are you the Chief Financial Officer of Match Group, Inc.? A.

RLP 25

Question 17. As Chief Financial Officer of Match Group, Inc., are you familiar with the operations of Match Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries? A.

Question 18. Is Match Group, Inc. a company that is registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission? A.

Question 19. Would you consider yourself experienced or knowledgeable in complying with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as it relates to Match Group, Inc.’s Form 10-K? A.

Question 22. To your knowledge, what business does Match Group, LLC engage in? A.

Question 23. I refer you to Attachment A, Exhibit 31.2, entitled “Certification”. Do you recognize the Certification in Exhibit 31.2? A.

RLP 26

Question 24. I refer you to Attachment A, Exhibit 31.2, entitled “Certification”. Are you the “Gary Swidler” referred to in the Certification in Exhibit 31.2? A.

Question 25. I refer you to Attachment A, Exhibit 31.2, entitled “Certification”. To your knowledge, was the Certification in Exhibit 31.2 true and accurate as of February 28, 2019, the date the Certification was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission? A.

Question 26. I refer you to Attachment A, Exhibit 31.2, entitled “Certification”. To your knowledge, is the Certification in Exhibit 31.2 true and accurate as of today’s date? A.

Question 27. I refer you to Attachment A, Exhibit 31.2, entitled “Certification”. Did you authorize the electronic signing of your name on the Certification in Exhibit 31.2? A.

Question 28. I refer you to Attachment A, Exhibit 32.2, entitled “Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002”. Do you recognize the certification in Exhibit 32.2? A.

Question 29. I refer you to Attachment A, Exhibit 32.2, entitled “Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002”. Are you the “Gary Swidler” referred to in the Certification in Exhibit 32.2? A.

Question 30. I refer you to Attachment A, Exhibit 32.2, entitled “Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002”. To your knowledge, was the Certification in Exhibit 32.2 true and accurate as of

RLP 27 February 28, 2019, the date the Certification was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission? A.

Question 31. I refer you to Attachment A, Exhibit 32.2, entitled “Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002”. To your knowledge, is the Certification in Exhibit 32.2 true and accurate as of today’s date? A.

Question 32. I refer you to Attachment A, Exhibit 32.2, entitled “Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002”. Did you authorize the electronic signing of your name on the Certification in Exhibit 32.2? A.

Question 33. I refer you to Attachment A, page 106, the section entitled “Signatures.” With reference to the “Gary Swidler” line, are you the “Gary Swidler” referred to on the Signature page of Match Group, Inc.’s Form 10-K, page 106? A.

Question 34. I refer you to Attachment A, page 106, the section entitled “Signatures.” With reference to the “Gary Swidler” line, did you authorize the electronic signing of your name on Match Group, Inc.’s Form 10-K, page 106? A.

RLP 28 PlentyOfFish, Meetic, OkCupid, OurTime, Pairs and Hinge, as well as a number of other brands, each designed to increase our users’ likelihood of finding a meaningful connection. Through our portfolio of trusted brands, we provide tailored products to meet the varying preferences of our users. To your knowledge, was that paragraph true and accurate as of February 28, 2019, the date the Form 10-K was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission? A.

Question 38. Again referring to Attachment A, page 3, “Part I, Item 1 Business, Who we are,” do you recognize the brand referred to in that paragraph as Tinder? A.

Question 39. To your knowledge, is Tinder a dating product?

RLP 29 A.