Legal News

PokerStars.com and FullTiltPoker.com Domain Names To Be Restored to Facilitate Return of U.S. Player Funds

3

The US government shut down several of the largest poker websites last week and seized five associated domain names, which caused considerable outrage and tumult in the US and around the world. The website operators and facilitators were indicted by Preet Bharara, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and they face a variety of charges.

The US Attorney’s office issued another press release this morning  (see pdf on US Attorney’s website), announcing that a deal has been struck between Bharara’s office and Poker Stars and Full Tilt  Poker to restore the PokerStars.com and FullTiltPoker.com domain names, allowing  US players to withdraw funds being held by the two companies.

According to today’s press release:

“Under the terms of the agreements with PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker, the companies agreed that they would not allow for, facilitate, or provide the ability for players located in the United States to engage in playing online poker for “real money” or any other thing of value. The agreements allow for PokerStars and Full Tilt Poker to use the pokerstars.com and fulltiltpoker.com domain names to facilitate the withdrawal of U.S. players’ funds held in account with the companies. The deposit of funds by U.S. players is expressly prohibited.”

This appears to be good news for US-based poker players who were concerned about the status of their deposits. Poker players who used other websites are not yet in the clear to receive their funds, but the press release mentioned that “the  Government stands to enter the same agreement with Absolute Poker if it so chooses.

Neither website appears to be operational yet, as both still have the seizure notice on them. It may take some time for the websites’ DNS to  propagate, just as it took up to 2 days for the sites to show the seizure notice for some people.

Thanks to Alexander Ripps at  GamblingCompliance.com for the tip.

US Government Seizes Major Poker Company Domain Names Including UB.com

The US Attorney’s Office in New York City issued a press release this afternoon announcing charges for the founders of three major online poker companies: PokerStars, Full Tilt Poker, and Absolute Poker. There are some serious charges in the indictment, and this could be a game changing moment for companies in the online poker business.

According to the press release, the government seized five domain names, although it did not mention the domain names that were seized. Generally, there is a clear message posted on the website indicating the seizure, which you can see in the graphic above.

Based on the message that currently appears on UltimateBet.com and also on UB.com, it appears that these domain name were two of the names seized, although the Whois information does not reflect that yet. According to a page on Wikipedia, Absolute Poker and Ultimate Bet are owned by the same company, Cereus Poker Network.

It appears that the websites for Full Tilt Poker, Absolute Poker, and PokerStars are still operational right now, although I don’t have a list of domain names that these companies use for their businesses.

This could be a game changer, since these are all major websites, and I don’t recall seizures of domain names for major poker companies like this. One of the most interesting things to follow will be learning how company clients will get their millions of dollars in deposits refunded.

Thanks to Alexander Ripps at GamblingCompliance.com for the tip.

Tucows Wins Lorenzo.com UDRP

2

Tucows LogoIn January, I reported that a company called Lorenzo International had filed a UDRP for the domain name, Lorenzo.com. This domain name is owned by Tucows and is a part of the company’s  NetIdentity suite of first and last name domain names, some of which have been the subject of successfully defended UDRP filings in the past.

According to the discussion in the UDRP decision (not yet available online), the company’s usage of Lorenzo.com is legitimate, and the complaint was denied. From the UDRP decision:

“there is no evidence that the Respondent’s continuing use of the domain name in the same way in connection with its Personal Names Service is not bona fide. The Respondent states that it was not aware of the Complainant or of its claim to trademark rights until it received the Complaint. The Complainant has therefore demonstrated that prior to any notice to it of the dispute it used the disputed domain name in the bona fide offering of its services.”

Based on prior results of similar cases, it’s not really surprising to me that Tucows prevailed in this UDRP. As a domain owner, it’s frustrating to see another UDRP case filed where one company thinks it has more rights to a descriptive domain name than the registrant.

A three person panel with Desmond J. Ryan AM, Dan Hunter, and David E. Sorkin ruled on this UDRP decision. Tucows was represented by AlvaradoSmith.

TechCrunch Article Should Update Characterization of Domain Company

53

DomainMarket.comTechCrunch is one of my favorite websites to read, and I have to say, I spend quite a bit of time on the site. I especially enjoy reading articles by Michael Arrington, Robin Wauters, and Erick Schonfeld, two TechCrunch staff journalists. Unfortunately, I disagree with the portrayal of Mike Mann’s Domain Asset Holdings in yesterday’s article about Facebook’s UDRP filing for 21 domain names.

First, let’s start with the case. Facebook filed a UDRP for 21 domain names owned by Domain Asset Holdings that included the term “Facebook” in them. Some of these names include FacebookBabes.com, FacebookCheats.com…etc. Some might think it’s a cut and dry case, but with trademark law, there’s very little that is cut and dry.

When I was in college, there was a freshman facebook distributed to all RAs, administrators, and freshmen. I am sure there are plenty of other colleges that did and still do the same. Facebook the company did not coin the term “facebook” despite making it into a well-known brand. That being said, according to Domain Asset Holdings founder, Mike Mann, “those names were registered by accident and we are trying to give them back to them.”

My biggest issue with the article is Robin’s characterization of Mann’s company. The article stated that these 21 “domain names are all currently owned by a company called Domain Asset Holdings, a  known  domain squatter based in Potomac, Maryland.” The article linked to a legal action for the domain name CustomResins.com, which appears to have settled.

There are two organizations that handle UDRP cases: World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and National Arbitration Forum (NAF). According to the WIPO database, there were no UDRP decisions with Domain Asset Holdings listed as the respondent. The NAF database lists two decisions with Domain Asset Holdings as the respondent. Both of these cases ended with Domain Asset Holdings winning.

In looking at Domain Asset Holdings’ nameservers, the company appears to own over one hundred thousand domain names. Having just two UDRP decisions (not including the recent Facebook filing) is quite remarkable for a company with this many domain names. This surely isn’t the sign of a company that’s a “known domain squatter.”

Furthermore, Mike Mann is the entrepreneur who previously sold BuyDomains to NameMedia. I don’t know the purchase price, but I’ve heard it was many millions of dollars. I’ve seen BuyDomains lose very few UDRP cases. Both of Mann’s companies generally invest in descriptive domain names, not trademarks.

For whatever reason, Domain Asset Holdings “accidentally” registered a group of names with trademarks in them and is trying to give them back to the company (according to Mike Mann). In my opinion, the description of Mann’s company as a known domain squatter is quite inaccurate, and I would hope Robin considers changing it.

***Update***

Mike Mann posted a comment on Robin’s article today stating “we have 150,000 names many of which a machine registered.”

WIPO Results: Typos VS. .CO

I want to point out two UDRP filings that were based on the same primary domain name but had different results. The first case involves a .CO domain name that matches an established .com website, and the second case involves several .com typos of the same .com domain name as the first case.

The former case involves a domain name that was recently registered, while the later involves domain names that were acquired prior to the complainant’s  acquisition. As you can see in the arguments below, the date of registration/acquisition was important in the panels’ findings.

A few weeks ago, a WIPO  UDRP decision awarded PokerStrategy.CO to the owner of PokerStrategy.com. The UDRP was defended by Raj Abhyanker, and    this case was decided by a single panelist. There were a few comments I found interesting in the discussion:

“Previous UDRP panels have found that where a domain name is purely descriptive, even where it is part of a registered trademark, then a respondent will have a right or legitimate interest, unless there is evidence that the respondent is targeting the complainant.”

“In this case the term “poker strategy” is comprised of two common English words and the combined term is purely descriptive and based on the evidence before the Panel is commonly used in the industry. Without more this would be enough to find that the Complainant has not demonstrated that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and to deny the Complaint. However as discussed below, there are supervening circumstances in this case which lead the Panel to infer, on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondent has in this case sought to target the Complainant and that therefore the Respondent has not acted in good faith.”

“Based on the Respondent’s own acknowledgement of the success of the Complainant’s website at “www.pokerstrategy.com” and that the site had been in operation for a number of years prior to the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name, the Panel infers that the Complainant’s domain name has most likely developed some degree of source identifying significance, at least amongst the Internet based poker playing community.”

The second UDRP filing involves a number of domain names that would appear to be typos of PokerStrategy.com. The owner of PokerStrategy.com filed a UDRP for:  pokersrategy.com,  pokerstategy.com,  pokerstratgy.com,  pokerstrtegy.com, and  pokrstrategy.com. This UDRP was defended by John Berryhill, and there were three panelists who agreed on the findings.

There was some interesting discussion in this decision as well, and it seems that the date of the domain registration was critically important to this particular decision. Here are some findings and discussion:

“It may well be that in non-English speaking jurisdictions the relevant authorities were unaware that the term “Poker Strategy” was an unregistrable descriptive term referring, flatly, to poker strategy, but the United States Trademark Office had no such language difficulty.”

“UDRP Panels have repeatedly found that the use of common words and phrases utilized as domain names to advertise relevant subject matter is legitimate.”

“Here, the Complainant has taken the unusual approach of simply “wishing the facts away” by stating that it “assumes that Respondent has acquired the disputed domains well after the Complainant’s trademarks have been applied for.” This statement is false and is readily and demonstrably false, and was explained to the Complainant’s agents prior to this dispute, upon their attempt to acquire the disputed domain names on behalf of the Complainant. A printout of the WHOIS data for  as of the stated “Cache Date” of November 6, 2005 clearly demonstrates that the Respondent had been the identified registrant thereof well prior to the Complainant’s later purchase of the domain name.”

Congratulations are in order for John Berryhill, who was also able to get a reverse domain name hijacking decision since the complainant gave statements that:

were clearly designed to convey the impression that the Complainant itself had been using  for a website from 2002, before registration of the disputed domain names. Whereas the Complainant could hardly have been unaware of the fact that it had only acquired  in 2006.

One thing I learned from the first decision is that if you own .CO domain names, you need to use them if the .com is already established. Descriptive domain names are generally protected when it comes to UDRP, but if a panel thinks you registered a name to capitalize on an established website, you had better be using the domain name as it should be used based on its descriptive nature.

Guest Post: Litigation Fall Out From Playboy Mansion Illness at DOMAINfest 2011

This is a guest post written by attorney Enrico Schaefer of Traverse Legal. Schaefer is an experienced IP lawyer whose firm handles cases in a variety of practice areas, including litigation. I have been told that a complaint in the matter below may be filed today or tomorrow.  For more information, contact Mark Clark.

—-

What started out as a simple post on German domainer Nico Zeifang’s Facebook page two days after the Playboy Mansion Party at DOMAINfest turned into something much bigger. Under the title “Domainerflu count: Who else caught the disease at DFG?” the post generated over 200 comments. Within hours, it was clear that at dozens of Playboy Mansion party attendees were sick, with the same upper respiratory symptoms. Within days, the number of reported illness had climbed to over 150 Playboy Mansion party attendees (no doubt more by now), with many moving into pneumonia.

Ironically, it was the nationalized Health Care providers in Switzerland who did early testing, with one Swiss party attendee reporting positive for Legionellosis with multiple levels of testing. Ron Jackson, whose wife Diana became pretty sick as well, started tracking the illness and reported the matter to the CDC who then involved the L.A. County Board of Health for a coordinated investigation including detailed questionnaires and requests for those who could afford it (or who were in LA and could get the test performed for free) to go through a battery of tests.

As of today, the L.A. Department of Health has confirmed the presence of the Legionella bacteria at the Playboy Mansion, although it has not issued its final findings.

The Los Angeles Department of Health remains circumspect about exact location of the bacteria at the Mansion and is waiting for other positive test results for Legionella bacteria in the samples taken from attendees before issuing a final report. Those of us who went through the testing are being requested to get more tests for comparison in the coming weeks. However, there is little doubt that “it is more probable than not” that the vast majority of Playboy Mansion attendees got sick from a bacterial strain of Legionella as a result of exposure at the Playboy Mansion. The common symptoms, consistency of symptoms with Legionella, timing, prior diagnosis of Legionella in at least one sick attendee and the curious revelation of finding Legionella bacteria at the Playboy Mansion well before the investigation was concluded make this pretty obvious.

I was put in an unusual situation as a result of the illness. I got very sick on Sunday after returning from DOMAINfest, with days of being in bed, long periods were I could barely speak because my voice was just about shut down, fever, wicked pain in my lower back, exhaustion, cough and related problems. My wife, who also became sick but not as severely, was leaving on vacation shortly after I became ill leaving me at home with three young boys trying to get my energy, voice and health back. For the last two years, I had been planning a backcountry hut trip in Colorado at high altitude. It can be a dangerous trip in good health. I had to cancel given the problems with my lungs and breathing. I struggled at home and at work for weeks. I continued to hear about people who were stuck in L.A. because they were too sick to travel, and others whose infection turned to pneumonia.

I asked one of the attorneys in my office to start doing an independent investigation, reviewing expert data on Legionaires, its causes and prevention. How would a place like the Playboy Mansion end up exposing guests to Legionella bacteria? It turns out that the issue really comes down to cleanliness. A little chlorine goes a long way. All of the information suggests that the Playboy Mansion failed to keep their facility clean.

I decided to retain my law firm to represent my wife and I in investigating the matter and, if appropriate, filing a lawsuit against responsible parties. There is information about obtaining legal representation and the anticipated lawsuit to be filed here. I had gone from being a lawyer to a client and this is why I made the decision to hire an attorney to protect my interest.

I see a lot of things as an attorney. A portion of my career was devoted to representing injured people in mass accidents, including class action asbestos cases. Our firm recently handled the largest number of victims from the Crown Princess Cruise ship accident in the Los Angeles, California complex litigation court. “Personal responsibility” is a common theme in tort cases these days. But typically people are referring to the ‘responsibility’ of the person who was hurt.

I know based on my experience that most people who are negligent are quick to point at the victim, without taking any ‘personal responsibility’ for their own actions. Our justice system helps hold people accountable. The “Playboy Plague” was not an accident or act of God. By all appearances, it was an easily preventable exposure at a location, which is paid significant sums to host such events. The effects were much more than a minor inconvenience for me and many fared much worse than me.

So what good can come from all this? I would hope that the Playboy Mansion would clean up its act as appropriate and take the measures necessary to make sure its guests are safe in the future. But the real effect is more likely the other large-scale event locations who see what happened here and find information which causes them to upgrade their efforts to provide a clean environment for their guests. It often turns out that publicity about these types of occurrences can have as much prophylactic effect as courtroom litigation. The Internet is a wonderful thing. It helps people make smarter decisions about many things, including safety. The Internet makes accountability permanent.

There are several other attendees who became ill who have contacted my law firm, and are seeking representation as well. I expect more will join in as more information is publicized about the event. In many cases, the damages for Plaintiffs won’t be unduly large, or have impacted them in a significant manner. Nevertheless, victims will have a shot at ‘fair compensation’ for having the very unpleasant experience of contracting this illness and the knowledge that others may not have to go through the same experience.

And there are questions that still need answers? Has this happened at the Playboy Mansion before? Are there instances where people got sick there but there was no Ron Jackson to step in, coordinate information and contact the CDC?

This has been unfortunate for DOMAINfest which put on the best domain conference ever, and DomainSponsor who shelled out a lot of money to sponsor the party at the Playboy Mansion. Both brands were impacted by the incident, although probably not within the community of people who know them well. Regardless, they deserved better for their A+ effort. Seems like the folks at Playboy may owe them more than an apology before the dust has settled on this one.

Recent Posts

FedEx Buys Its 3 Letter .com Ticker Symbol

0
It looks like FedEx has acquired a valuable 3 letter .com domain name. Whois records show FedEx is now the owner of FDX.com. The...

Squadhelp Rebrands as Atom with Atom.com

7
Squadhelp announced a complete rebrand this morning. The company is now known as Atom, and it acquired the Atom.com domain name in advance of...

Nissan Going after Nissan.ai

3
Nissan is an automaker that uses NissanUSA.com for its website here in the US. The reason it uses an off-brand domain name is because...

Using AI For Background Image

9
I acquired a domain name last week, and once it transferred to GoDaddy, I set up a custom landing page using Carrd. Instead of...

It’s All About the Time You Put into It

2
A few years ago, my wife jokingly described my daily work lifestyle as leisurely. In some ways, I thought of that as a badge...