Based on a Wednesday report by The Sydney Morning Herald newspaper, CrownBet Proprietary Limited shelled out about $244 million in March to acquire the Regional assets of British sportsbetting giant William Hill. The Melbourne-based supplier subsequently filed an application to trademark the term ‘Sportingbet’ earlier later asking the Australian Securities and Investments Commission for consent to register under the name Sportingbet Proprietary Limited.
The newspaper reported that legendary Australian sportsbetting entrepreneur, Alan Tripp, who is the father of CrownBet Proprietary Limited’s new Chief Executive Officer, Matt Tripp, had previously owned an Australia-facing sportsbetting operation named Sportingbet but sold this enterprise to William Hill as part of a 2014 deal worth roughly $606.3 million.
CrownBet Proprietary Limited, which is majority-owned by Toronto-listed The Stars Group Incorporated, had hoped to make use of the ‘Sportingbet’ name in honor of the senior Tripp but was past month sued by Sportsbet amid allegations that such a name-change would violate its trademark and lead to confusion due to how the two monikers are so similar.
In its July 11 ruling, the Federal Court of Australia reportedly granted Sportbet’s injunction petition, which currently leaves CrownBet Proprietary Limited to decide whether to abandon its favored re-branding or contest the issue at trial.
“This conclusion demonstrates the court shares our concern regarding the likelihood that consumers will be misled into thinking services offered under a ‘Sportingbet’ new are connected or associated with Sportsbet,” reportedly read a statement from Sportsbet, which is a subsidiary of Dublin-headquartered bookmaking giant Paddy Power Betfair. “Sportsbet will continue to take all necessary action to protect its own brand and prevent deception in the market and will see the thing through to a final decision if needed.
CrownBet Proprietary Limited told The Sydney Morning Herald it was ‘clearly frustrated ’ together with the ruling from the Federal Court of Australia and has been currently set to ‘examine the decision closely and consider all options available to usrsquo;.
