Chrisco has been caught in the WRONG again. Not content with selling over-priced hampers on both sides of the Tasman, ripping off their poor customers they have also been caught using the domain name of a competitor in Australia and redirecting traffic.
Hamper King is one of their competitors in Australia and their domain name is hamperking.com.au Chrisco though went and registered the domain hamperking.com through Melbourn IT. This was the start of their undoing.
Australia has much tougher laws for cyber squatters and by registering the domain through an Australian provider opened them up to action through the World Intellectual Property Organisation. The case and verdict can be viewed on WIPO’s website.
The Complainant is an Australian company that supplies Christmas hampers, toys, gifts, home furnishings and electronics through its website at “www.hamperking.com.au”. It is the owner of the trademark HAMPER KING which was registered in Australia on March 27, 2006.
The Respondent is a New Zealand company registered in Australia as a foreign company. It registered the disputed domain name on January 12, 2006.
The Complainant’s representative issued a letter of demand to the Respondent on October 30, 2008 notifying that the Complainant was the registered owner of the trademark HAMPER KING. The letter informed the Respondent that it was in breach of the Complainant’s trademark rights through using the disputed domain name to divert internet traffic to the Respondent’s website. The Respondent was requested to cease using the domain name and transfer it to the Complainant.
On October 31, 2008 the Respondent’s representative agreed to cease using the domain name but would not agree to transfer it to the Complainant.
Can you believe that Chrisco failed to respond? Skankers! WIPO found that Chrisco:
…has not rebutted any of the Complainant’s claims, the Panel considers that there has to be a strong probability that the Respondent’s awareness of the Hamper King business was the motivation for registering and using the disputed domain name. Also, the Panel considers the Respondent’s choice of the words HAMPER KING was not merely coincidental but was to gain some sort of advantage in relation to a competitor. In this case the Respondent intentionally redirects Internet users to its website for commercial gain.
In view of the above, and on a balance of probabilities, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
It isn’t then surprising that Chrisco was ordered to transfer the domain name <hamperking.com>to the Complainant.
Chrisco, always trying to rip someone off.