Microgaming seize "microgaming" domain names

[32x]

Most people don't realize, and this previously included me, that UDRP, ACPA and all forms of domain law are governed by WIPO but still maintained by ICANN, which is why all of the WIPO guidelines are listed on ICANN. Here's where the problem is for you. WIPO also primarily protects "Intellectual Property" If their name is in your domain, they have you! It really depends on a lot of variables, outside of that:

1. Does their company frequently complain to WIPO and seize domains?
2. How long have you been in acquisition of the domain? (as someone pointed out above)
3. Do you have their full product/company name in your domain?
4. Where you actually aware that their company was in your domain when you purchased it?
5. Where is your domain located? Location (Mutual Jurisdiction, per WIPO) can make it difficult, as they have to file at the nearest location to the "Respondent"..YOU! This could end-up costing them a fortune but it will cost you a fortune too, and that's why they will win if you are using their name in your domain.

Everyone knows my situation? The reason why there has been no follow-up with WIPO, is that they do not have a case in the US, I have been promoting my product for 6 years and can prove it (it has nothing to do with them), they were threatening with a Trade Mark that they do not have and my domain name does not contain their TM. In my case, if they filed with WIPO, they would have to do it in Los Angeles. (I am thankfully very close)

Here are the WIPO guidelines from ICANN for UDRP: http://www.icann.org/en/dndr/udrp/uniform-rules.htm#3
There are 3 criteria that must be met by them, in order for them to take the domain (Link above:The Compaint 3. (ix) )
Know all of these rules! Perhaps you can meet at least 1 of these criteria.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://32xforum.blogspot.com/

[Caruso]

Seriously, did 32Red try to hussle you out of your domin name because it contains the number 32??

Does 32Red think it owns that number?

[32x]

It was not really my intention to dredge-up my situation, other than to make a point.

I guess it's just very important to know the domain laws with respect to WIPO and ICANN, as many companies, right or wrong, are coming after domains. If someone is actually in violation of WIPO/ICANN guidelines, they will not meet the 3 criteria on the ICANN link that I referenced above. In my case, they would never meet the 3 criteria. In this case, with respect to this thread, there was an actuall intention to use the "microgaming" trade mark. You would really have to look at the microgaming trade mark to see what their class number and usage is at the USPTO.

They do have a US trade mark, and the "registration number" is 3077292

Here is the link to the USPTO, to research it further: http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/index.jsp

In my case, they only had a serial number and didn't even have a trade mark yet. They still don't. That's a violation of USPTO guidelines in the US. But even if they did, it is for the entire name of their domain. I do not have their company name in my domain.

This case is completely different, but still warrants investigation. I would study WIPO/ICANN policy and research their trade marks, US and abroad.

[GCG]

Even Brightshare an operator is in violation :


http://www.gpwa.org/forum/brightshar...me-203081.html

[32x]

For the future they will become even a bigger pile of smelly trash.

This is the REAL issue. These companies are destroying their reputation on these forums and throughout the internet, right or wrong. Many important people read these forums, including some of the heads Vegas Gambling. It's not very smart to pick-on the little guy. Legalization in the US is heading in an uphill direction and in the end, they are going to be seen as having untrustworthy business practices.


http://32xforum.blogspot.com/

[universal4]

I agree.....the smart operators understand the need of the small affiliates....there are THOUSANDS of us....producing BILLIONS of banner and brand impressions.....

Rick
Universal4

[32x]

I agree.....the smart operators understand the need of the small affiliates....there are THOUSANDS of us....producing BILLIONS of banner and brand impressions.....

Rick
Universal4

That is exactly what is happening in the most negative way for these companies. You notice that they are not responding to this thread or other threads with the same complaints from us. I remember when I first started posting on GPWA and there would be an almost immediate response from the companies. Now, they are just stabbing us in the back and WE are the primary suppliers of their affiliate revenue. Don't get me wrong, there are some amazingly supportive companies on GPWA and other forums, most in fact. This problem is just with a few dishonest, corrupt companies, that have decided to punish us for the misdeeds of the current US online gambling situtation.

http://32xforum.blogspot.com/

[online-casino]

I agree.....the smart operators understand the need of the small affiliates....there are THOUSANDS of us....producing BILLIONS of banner and brand impressions.....

That's a good example of how arrogance diminishes wisdom. They are just sawing off the branch their bottoms are comfortably sitting on, but they will eventually regret it, I'm sure.

[grem]

Now this makes things interesting and messy

Even Brightshare an operator is in violation :


http://www.gpwa.org/forum/brightshar...me-203081.html

[GCG]

I had to let go of another 3 domains, which in itself did not have much value - but the way how one gets threatened personally - just to give in is mind boggling.

I have serious doubts about microgaming's reputation being a leader of the pack, looks like a bunch of crooks with an attitude to me.

[slotmad]

You think Microgaming are bad now, just watch Playtech go now they're (unfathomably) gaining a bit of ground. They're already bullying casino operators to work with them exclusively.
If you own a Playtech related URL I expect there'll be a virtual knock on the door soon.

[online-casino]

They're already bullying casino operators to work with them exclusively.

Sorry, where did you get that from?

[slotmad]

Sorry, where did you get that from?

It was just an aside based on discussions I've had with aff and casino managers, Playtech are getting more bolshy with their partners and potential partners who want to work with multiple providers, if they treat them like that then those attitudes generally become endemic in a company.

[online-casino]

Well, if there's such a pityful tendency, we can only hope that small providers will get stronger and eventually replace the former Industry leaders. The mere fact that they have been around for so long doesn't mean that they can behave like there's no one else to take their place

[top50hot]

How about such domains: www.microslots.xx,www.microbonus.xx

[Simmo!]

I have a handful of domains (inside and outside of gaming) that include, or are close to, trademarks, some of which go back a couple of years or so. Before or around the time I launched them, I went face-to-face with each of the companies (bar one!) who owned the TMs and asked if it was OK and explained what I wanted to do. In a couple of cases I have contracts with those companies, in a couple of others the best I could get was (a clearly riskier) verbal agreement.

On *every* site I have a very obvious disclaimer explaining that the site is not official or endorsed, usually with a link over to the official site. In fact I suspect that this is the main reason my one site where I haven't got direct permission from the TM holder has been left alone because they have certainly had my competitor's sites removed and they must be aware of mine as it ranks Top 3 for the TM LOL!

The bottom line is that most companies are happy for you to use the marks for mutual benefit as long as a) you ask for (and receive!) permission b) you carry an obvious disclaimer distancing the TM holder from content and c) you agree not to take liberties - or at least show an obvious benefit to the mark or it's licencees. As a result, only once have I met opposition and that turned out well once I'd sat down with them. In one instance, I transferred the domain to them but have a contract to use it under a 5 year licence with options to extend. I'd urge everyone with a domain that *may* infringe a TM to get an obvious disclaimer up asap.

Despite that, I admit it's a strategy that carries some risk so it's sensible to make those a small part of the overall picture if possible. Some of that risk comes from competitors who have had their own TM domains taken down who feel it is unjust. I've had at least one of my sites reported to the TM holder but because of my agreement with them it was OK. Without the agreement they probably would have had little option but to serve me.

[FictionNet]

I registered some typo brand domains in the past, ie. btefred.com (I never had that domain - it's just an example). Looking back, it seems a bit dirty to say the least and I question now why (1) I didn't think it was dirty at the time, (2) more casinos didn't come after me.

Pretty much all of the typo domains were allowed to expire at some point - probably due to a growing realisation of the yuckiness of having these domains, added to the convenient fact that they weren't actually making me much money anyway.

The only typo domains I still own are related to intercasino and I e-mailed interpartners a couple of times over the last year or so, telling them I have these domains and they can have them for free, before they expire. I haven't heard anything back from them so I guess these domains will just expire.

[Simmo!]

I think there is a discernable difference between registering company brandnames and product brandnames. Registering company brands or typos without prior permission is just asking for trouble IMO whereas a (gaming) company might well be more receptive towards a product domain if they are approached first and the plan offers some sort of financial incentive for them down the line.

[lots0]

What about Brand names in sub-domains?

microgaming.mysite.com

These are just as brandable as a TLD, at least they are in google.