10 reasons to laugh.
b) by defacing the Complainant’s logo, the Respondent has and continues to make derogatory use of the Complainant’s copyright work;
c) by referring to a “Product Recall - Starbucks Cup Fault” and “Consumer Warning - Starbucks Cup Recall”, the Respondent has and continues to deceive the public into falsely believing that the Complainant’s cups are faulty and are being recalled;
d) the Respondent has and continues to tarnish the Complainant’s registered device mark, by altering the mark to read “Fuck Off”;
e) the Respondent has and continues to tarnish, dilute, damage or be otherwise detrimental to the Complainant’s trade marks STARBUCKS, STARBUCK COFFEE and device marks and the Complainant’s business, goodwill and reputation;
f) through the website to which the Domain Name resolves, the Respondent has and continues to incite members of the public to deface the property of the Complainant;
g) the Respondent has and continues to impersonate the Complainant by not making it clear in the Domain Name that the site to which it resolves is a criticism site, which is not endorsed by or affiliated to the Complainant. By so doing, the Respondent is illegitimately capitalising on the STARBUCKS name to attract internet traffic to the site;
h) the disclaimer does not clarify that the Respondent is not endorsed by or affiliated to the Complainant.
i) the Domain Name was registered and used primarily for the purpose of unfairly disrupting the Complainant’s business by unfairly diverting users seeking information on the Complainant and its products to a site which is critical of the Complainant to encourage the Complainant’s customers to refrain from buying its products.
j) by using the Domain Name in a way which has confused people or businesses in to believing that the Domain Name is registered to, operated or authorised by, or otherwise connected with the Complainant. The disclaimer used by the Respondent is insufficient to prevent an internet user incorrectly concluding that the site and the Domain Name are somehow endorsed by the Complainant as a forum for criticism or are otherwise connected with the Complainant. (see Pharmacia AB v Wagstaff (case no DRS 00048)).