Press Release: 32Red continues push to assert IP rights

[Mark@32Red]

Hi Webmasters,

Please find below a press release that has gone out today, any questions - please shout:

NEWS RELEASE
21 JUNE 2011
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


32RED PLC RIVALS CONCEDE DOMAINS AS AWARD-WINNING ONLINE CASINO CONTINUES PUSH TO ASSERT IP RIGHTS

Two rivals release domains following 32Red court victory over William Hill Online

London and Gibraltar, 21 June 2011: AIM-listed online casino operator 32Red Plc has announced that two further operators of online casino websites have given up infringing domains and relinquished control of them.

This follows 32Red’s avowal that it would “continue taking steps to assert and protect its intellectual property rights” after its recent High Court victory against William Hill Online, which was operating a site called ‘32Vegas’.

Now it’s been revealed that the owners of ‘32Royal’ have transferred their web address to 32Red unconditionally, and that another gaming operator, Spin32, has changed the name of its business and transferred all domains containing the digits ‘32’ to 32Red again without condition.

The strength of 32Red’s intellectual property rights were publicly and unequivocally confirmed in the case against William Hill Online. In a Judgment handed down in January by Mr Justice Henderson, after a six-day trial the previous October, the court upheld 32Red’s claim that 32Vegas, an online casino operated by William Hill Online under a joint venture between William Hill and Playtech, infringed 32Red’s European Community trade marks.

The judge also dismissed William Hill’s claims that the trade marks owned by 32Red (‘32Red’ and ‘32’) should be invalidated. He concluded that “the 32Red brand was highly distinctive”, and “enjoyed a strong reputation in the online gambling community”. Mr Justice Henderson added: “The goods and services covered by the Vegas signs were identical, and the degree of similarity between the signs and the Community marks was high, including in particular the initial ‘32’ ... the detriment to the distinctive character of the Community marks lay in the risk of a false association with 32Vegas, a brand with an inferior reputation which operated in the same marketplace”.

Ed Ware, CEO of 32Red Plc said: “We are happy to have these two other infringing domains safely under our control. The protection of an online entity’s intellectual property rights are vital to the wellbeing of any internet business, and as an entirely online enterprise, with no physical presence in our markets, this makes our brand, our domain name and our reputation pivotal to the success of the business”.

“We have had the imagination to create a distinctive and appealing brand in 32Red, and have invested millions in advertising it over nearly 10 years. We will continue to take action to protect our property and rights where necessary.”

City of London-based solicitors McDermott, Will & Emery represented 32Red throughout the action with William Hill Online and continue to act for the Company in the upcoming Damages Inquiry and the appeal against the decision lodged by William Hill Online.

McDermott partner Hiroshi Sheraton added: “An effective strategy for enforcing IP rights is essential in building a strong brand like 32Red, particularly in the online world, which is often seen as a ‘soft target’. Although the decision to take legal action to protect a brand is never one that’s easily taken, particularly against an industry stalwart such as William Hill, the findings of the judge speak for themselves. It is reassuring that others are now taking notice.”

Ends

About 32Red plc

32Red Plc was established in 2002 and listed on the London Stock Exchange (AIM Ticker:TTR) in 2005. Today, it is an award-winning online casino, poker and bingo operator running over 450 games, and is a six-times winner of Best Casino and was recently awarded Casino of the Decade in 2010 by industry watchdog, Casinomeister.

32Red is licensed and regulated by the Government of Gibraltar, with the company's entire operations located in British territory. The company is committed to responsible gambling and ensures the company adheres fully to UK law and offers 11 different languages to players and a casino service in 5 different currencies. More at www.32red.com.

All trade marks mentioned in this release are the property of their respective owners

Regards,
Mark

 

[Vladi]

I find IP related action like this little more than bullying and unwarranted protectionism. Being able to assert a right to the number 32 is ridiculous and just shows how divorced from common sense and reality these IP laws are. If these sites were using both '32' and 'Red' in their names then fair enough. But they weren't. Are 32 Red going to take Cherry Red, Lucky Red, Red Flush, Redbet etc to court? If not, why not, what makes 32 special? Come to think of it, BetfRED has been around a lot longer than 32 Red and its the same industry, maybe they should sue you?!?

However when it is cpays / affiliates united on the end of it, as an affiliate I must admit it makes me laugh a little on the inside. This couldn't have happened to a worse bunch of scumbags.

 

[bonustreak]

However when it is cpays / affiliates united on the end of it, as an affiliate I must admit it makes me laugh a little on the inside. This couldn't have happened to a worse bunch of scumbags.

YEP..

I have to agree that sueing anyone that uses 32 or Red in url's is a bit over the edge but maybe they were doing a bit of black hat seo as well so they were called out... who knows.

 

[Aussie-Dave]

I have to agree that sueing anyone that uses 32 or Red in url's is a bit over the edge

The court case concerned the use of "32" not red. Besides 32Red is Trademarked. I doubt they'd have issue with a funky clothing boutique using "32" but I can understand them being upset about another gaming property using "32".

IMHO it comes back to attempting to ride the success of someone else's hard work and investment into a Brand and trying to pass (stooge) people into thinking the fony is the real thing.

Hypothetical...You've invested a lot of time and money into both brands of Bonustreak and StreakGaming...If someone registered bonustreakcasinos.com or something similar you'd be ok with that, you'd be fine with someone using your hard work to try and ride your shirt tails of success hoping people would think bonustreakcasinos.com was also owned by Bonustreak and StreakGaming...?

Just some food for thought.



Cheers



Dave

 

[Vladi]

That's obviously not comparing apples with apples Dave. Like I said if someone had been using 32redcasino or 32redroulette or Red32 etc then the legal action would be fair enough.

Following the lead of 32 Red and using your example, bonusstreak should sue any casino affiliate site that used the word 'bonus' or 'streak' individually in their URLs. Clearly ludicrous.

Suing anyone that uses the number 32 in their name is equally ridiculous. Again, why aren't they going after anyone who has 'red' in their name? Or perhaps they are?!?!

 

[Aussie-Dave]

Suing anyone that uses the number 32 in their name is equally ridiculous. Again, why aren't they going after anyone who has 'red' in their name? Or perhaps they are?!?!

In the case of 32Red, the "32" is widely used or should I say holds more significant in their branding identity than "red", least that's how I see it.

Everything from their desktop icon, to branding on their casino software credits window displays "32". In that regard it's certainly clear to me why they'd be upset with another gaming operator or anyone else in the business using "32" in their domain.

Now, if they were suing a funky clothing boutique, a hair salon or something disconnected and totally removed from the gaming industry for using "32", then yes that would be "ridiculous"...

Any how, I don't think were going to agree on this, so lets just agree to disagree.


Cheers



Dave

 

[Mark@32Red]

Hi Guys,

Firstly, I would like to point out that this is my personal option, and not an official 32Red response.

It’s an interesting debate going on here; it’s good to hear your thoughts on the latest domains that have been brought under 32Red’s control.

I’d like to put a question out there: as the number 32 has nothing special about it – other than it has been used by 32Red as part of it’s identity for 10 years now - why would any other gambling company choose to use it, if there were not looking to benefit from the hard work 32Red have put in building this brand? Why not use 21 or 13 which are accepted as “lucky” numbers and are not distinctive in this sense? It’s so open and shut that the owners of these infringing domains had to relinquish control. That speaks volumes IMHO.

I should also point out that when it comes to “32” – 32Red owns the trade mark for this term for ANY gambling related site in the UK. So as Dave suggests, 32Red wouldn’t be too concerned over 32shoes.com or 32hippos.co.uk, but any gambling related site using 32 would be infringing UK registered trade mark number 008398695.

Regards
Mark

 

[leporello]

I think this is completely fair game. 32 Vegas is extremely similar to 32 Red and would easily be confused as being one and the same company. Don't have any issues at all with 32red acting to protect their IP rights in this case.

 

[Vladi]

It’s so open and shut that the owners of these infringing domains had to relinquish control. That speaks volumes IMHO.

I should also point out that when it comes to “32” – 32Red owns the trade mark for this term for ANY gambling related site in the UK. So as Dave suggests, 32Red wouldn’t be too concerned over 32shoes.com or 32hippos.co.uk, but any gambling related site using 32 would be infringing UK registered trade mark number 008398695.

I don't believe 32 Red's use of the number 32 makes it anything special. It is their unique use of the number 32 combined with the word Red that matters. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence would not confuse 32 Red with Spin32 for example. I am also willing to bet that if someone opened 33 Black casino tomorrow, 32 Red would be falling over themselves to have it shut down despite neither 32 or Red appearing in the name.

That "open and shut" comment is highly debatable. If you were an average webmaster that was threatened by 32 Red with legal action, you would not be in a position to fight it given 32 Red's relative financial muscle. 32 Vegas fought and lost, long after they changed to whatever it is now anyway, making the whole thing ultimately pointless other than establishing a case history which 32 Red can now use to bully others with. I don't know that any of the owners of the other sites did fight in court? If not the handover of the other domains prove absolutely nothing in a legal sense.

Not necessarily related to this case, but its my belief that IP laws, patents, copyrights, trademarks and other protectionist laws have gone so far beyond what they were intended to do originally (which was to foster innovation) that they now do the precise opposite. i.e. entrench dominant players in markets and stifle innovation, and reduce the ability to compete on merit. Trademarking something as generic as the number 32, life of the author plus 70 years of copyright, patents like Amazon's 1-click shopping, patent trolling like we see in this industry by First Technology etc are all examples where IP laws have been applied in a stupid and counterproductive manner.

 

[leporello]

Any site that tries to build a similarly named brand is doing so in an attempt to piggyback off the name of the existing brand. Hardly innovation when you call your company 32Vegas.

I don't get why there is so much hate for 32Red here. They are completely within their rights to protect their brand in cases such as this. 32Vegas is definitely similar enough as to cause confusion and I think any new casino site that was to use 32 in the name would also be similarly confusing, as it would be a fair assumption that it was a sister company of 32 Red (all IMHO of course).

 

[Vladi]

Don't misconstrue my dislike of overly broad-reaching IP laws that are commonly abused these days with "hate" for 32 Red. I recommend 32 Red to players. I think 32 Vegas were and are run by a bunch of conmen, liars, and thieves.

It is laws that stifle innovation that I have a problem with.

 

[rak]

YEP..

I have to agree that sueing anyone that uses 32 or Red in url's is a bit over the edge but maybe they were doing a bit of black hat seo as well so they were called out... who knows.

I'm going to build a gambling website called "bonustreakaction" ... and marketed it all over the web, and compete for your terms.... ;D

Just messing with you - I wouldn't want to be the one to face the awesome power that is bonustreak!!!

 

[Vladi]

I reckon bonusstreakers.com would draw a bit of traffic...

 

[Mark@32Red]

Hi Vladi,

Again, this is my view, not that of 32Red!

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence would not confuse 32 Red with Spin32 for example.

I'm in a privileged position to have been able to see the evidence that was put forward in the case, and I am afraid this statement isn't correct. There were many players who were confused - often quoting incorrect account numbers etc etc. Hence the ruling in our favour.

A lot of 32Red players refer to us as simply "32" - you will no doubt have seen that our Desktop icon is also just "32" and there are many other examples. My personal opinion (and seemingly the opinion of the high court judge) is that there is no reason for a gaming company to use "32" except to form an association with 32Red.

On a final note, you mentioned in a previous post that this kind of action was a form of bullying. Again, this is my personal view, but if you look at the annual revenue of both 32Red Plc and WHG Intl Plc - you'll see that in a David vs Golliath battle - it was actually the underdogs who came out on top. It's a competetive industry as you know, and we all need to fight hard to protect our investments - the fact that Spin32 and 32Royal were much smaller than 32Vegas, doesnt mean that they should be treated any different IMO.

Regards,
Mark

 

[32x]

Hi Guys,

Firstly, I would like to point out that this is my personal option, and not an official 32Red response.

It’s an interesting debate going on here; it’s good to hear your thoughts on the latest domains that have been brought under 32Red’s control.

I’d like to put a question out there: as the number 32 has nothing special about it – other than it has been used by 32Red as part of it’s identity for 10 years now - why would any other gambling company choose to use it, if there were not looking to benefit from the hard work 32Red have put in building this brand? Why not use 21 or 13 which are accepted as “lucky” numbers and are not distinctive in this sense? It’s so open and shut that the owners of these infringing domains had to relinquish control. That speaks volumes IMHO.

I should also point out that when it comes to “32” – 32Red owns the trade mark for this term for ANY gambling related site in the UK. So as Dave suggests, 32Red wouldn’t be too concerned over 32shoes.com or 32hippos.co.uk, but any gambling related site using 32 would be infringing UK registered trade mark number 008398695.

Regards
Mark

* * * * The statements below are my opinions only, and are to the best of my recollection * * * *

What about my situation? I own 32x.com, which existed before 32red.com (5 years before). I purchased it in an auction, and my "intent" was not in "bad faith" as stated in the WH trial, to the best of my recollection and opinion. Also, in my opinion, there is no "consumer confusion", as per the WH case and Trade Mark Law, to the best of my recollection and opinion. The term 32x actually meant something before the internet existed; 32x CDROM, and 32x Sega (1994) (the majority of my traffic per Google analytics, Alexa, and my server logs). In my opinion, 32red was not a term that existed in any industry until it was created in 2001, but that is the best that I can recall and am not sure... If you type 32 on Google or Yahoo, I will not show up as to the best of my recollection. If you type 32x on Google or Yahoo, I am on the first page at least as of today...

The "intent", in my opinion, as well as the Trade Marks and The WH case "The UK mark: validity" definition. In my opinion, I don't fall into the definition nor am I a Casino. I don't provide Casino Services or take money directly from customers, in my opinion, per their Trade Marks.

Here are their Trade Marks to the best of my recollection:

UK Trade Mark: 2509861 "32"

EU Trade Mark: 8398695 "32"

EU Trade Mark: 2907426 "32red"

EU Trade Mark: 2814424 "32red"

US Trade Mark: 78,654,867 "32red"


I urge everyone to look-up these trade marks on the EU, UK, and US Trade Mark database and to download the William Hill case, (Public Record) to fully understand the actual definition. It takes a bit of time to reference the article numbers, but this is the only way to fully understand it; moreover, I also do not claim to fully understand it, as my statements are only my opinions.

I also wanted to state that CAP, Affiliate Guard Dog and GPWA's forum are located in the US, so stating that this is my opinion is my right under US law and the constitution. I was accused by their rep on GPWA, in my opinion and to my best recall, of making "an allegation". Opinion IS the key word here..

The reason I am responding here is because I feel, in my opinion, that I am being targeted and have done nothing. I am finding these posts all over the internet and, in my opinion, they are bullying as stated previously. I received a Cease and Desist, asking me to hand over my domain. I WILL NOT....


* * * * The statements above are my opinions only, and are to the best of my recollection * * * *

 

[32x]

* * * * The statements below are my opinions only, and are to the best of my recollection * * * *

I also wanted to state that CAP, Affiliate Guard Dog and GPWA's forum are located in the US, so stating that this is my opinion is my right under US law and the constitution.

* * * * The statements above are my opinions only, and are to the best of my recollection * * * *

I would like to make a correction! I thought Affiliate Guard Dog was in US, not true, but I DID state that it was my opinion... The whois information showed as Arizona US.. My mistake...

 

[Webzcas]

I also wanted to state that CAP, Affiliate Guard Dog and GPWA's forum are located in the US, so stating that this is my opinion is my right under US law and the constitution.

Not getting involved in this here as already made my own view clear on the GPWA.

Just wanted to state that Affiliate Guard Dog is not hosted in the US. It is physically hosted in London, England. Not that I am sure what that has anything to do with this issue you have.