In my opinion 32red has threatened my domain, to the best of my recollection..

[32x]

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

I just received what, in my opinion, seems to be a legal threat regarding my domain: 32x.com. The e-mail, to the best of my recollection, is from The Sovereign Group and states that I am to turn over my domain to 32red.. This is interesting considering 32x.com was created in 1997, 5 years before 32red ever existed. any thought?


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

[Webzcas]

Well seeing as you are using the site to promote a white label casino, then yes 32Red are well within their rights. As they have trademarked the number 32 in relation to online gambling activities.

I would hand the domain over, or face being forced to through court action.

[TheGamblingGuru]

Well seeing as you are using the site to promote a white label casino, then yes 32Red are well within their rights. As they have trademarked the number 32 in relation to online gambling activities.

I would hand the domain over, or face being forced to through court action.

Surely you're kidding right? Considering the fact that 32x just stated above that he/she had created this domain 5 yrs prior to 32Red ever coming on the scene!

If it came down to a court case, I'll be damn but I would most definitely take my chances in court on this one.

____
____

[Webzcas]

Not kidding no. Especially as the affiliate in question has had either a white label casino up on the site or casino related material since 2006.

http://web.archive.org/web/200610040...ttp://32x.com/

Also 32Red have a legal precedent on their side. Not exactly wise advice to give to this person to take their chances in court.

See here:

http://www.casinos-online.co.uk/news...ory-for-32red/
http://www.casinos-online.co.uk/news...in-high-court/
http://www.casinos-online.co.uk/news...her-legal-hit/

Now if the affiliate was using the site for something completely different to online gaming, then you would have a point. But it is quite clear for 5 years the domain in question has been used to promote gambling or act as a casino white label front.

[32x]

Here are the section codes: US trade mark no. 78,654,867, European Community trade marks nos. 2814424, 2907426 and 8398695 and UK registered trade mark no. 2509861

To the best my my opinion and knowledge, the US patent is for the "word" only; in the United States, you cannot trade mark a number. My domain is in the US. Also, as I have stated, 32x.com existed BEFORE 32red.com and it's corporation.. I DO intend to fight!!!

[TheGamblingGuru]

Here are the section codes: US trade mark no. 78,654,867, European Community trade marks nos. 2814424, 2907426 and 8398695 and UK registered trade mark no. 2509861

To the best my my opinion and knowledge, the US patent is for the "word" only; in the United States, you cannot trade mark a number. My domain is in the US. Also, as I have stated, 32x.com existed BEFORE 32red.com and it's corporation.. I DO intend to fight!!!

Yep, that's also what I just read as well...good luck!

____
____

[32x]

Also, the term "32x" is a registered term. It dates back to the IBM and Bell labs days of the internet's creation and It was foundationalized by Sega in 1994 for the Sega Mega Drive 32x. I have had a Sub-Domain, sega.32x.com, since 2005.. I can prove I wasn't trademarking their name. Also in 2005, in my opinion, 32red was a tiny little company. I have never even applied for their affiliate program and I belong to numerous major affiliate programs. If I were trying to steal their patent, I would have been an affiliate of theirs.

[TheGamblingGuru]

Not kidding no. Especially as the affiliate in question has had either a white label casino up on the site or casino related material since 2006.

http://web.archive.org/web/200610040...ttp://32x.com/

Also 32Red have a legal precedent on their side. Not exactly wise advice to give to this person to take their chances in court.

See here:

http://www.casinos-online.co.uk/news...ory-for-32red/
http://www.casinos-online.co.uk/news...in-high-court/
http://www.casinos-online.co.uk/news...her-legal-hit/

Now if the affiliate was using the site for something completely different to online gaming, then you would have a point. But it is quite clear for 5 years the domain in question has been used to promote gambling or act as a casino white label front.

Yea, but there's a big difference in what the court ruled in the WH case verses this particular instance here...

In The WH case "The court held that William Hill's 32 Vegas casino signs were sufficiently similar to 32Red's marks" which I do agree with, that WH's 32Vegas signs, marks, collaterals were all very similar to those used by 32Red and were not distinct at all whereas in this situation above the WH case has no precedence at all IMO.

____
____

[Webzcas]

Whatever guys. Not my fight.

Just answering honestly the poster's original post. Which is, if it were me I would hand it over.

Let us know how you get on and good luck.

[TheGamblingGuru]

I was answering honestly as well IMO of course. I do think it's good though that he has two opposing view-points to consider now...I respect yours of course Dave but mine is that I never agree to simply just roll or bend over so fast when there may be an alternative available.

____
____

[32x]

I, also, appreciate all of your knowledgeable and informative statements. That is why GPWA exists, and I appreciate it...

Thanks to all...

[pompeyrayuk]

Not really sure where you stand although as mentioned 32Red do have a history of winning which says to me a good legal team. Could yours compete?

[AmCan]

I'll certainly chime into say, if you're in the US, i tell them to take a flying leap. "32" could never be trademarked in the US. "32 Red" for a casino brand certainly could be, but "32x" wouldn't infringe in that. Your site is green, it's not made to confuse anyone into thinking it's the same place. i don't think ICANN or civil suit would find for 32 Red.

Now if you set up your white label site to use the same colors, layout, etc. that 32 Red uses, you're more likely to get ruled against.

I could certainly see the law being less friendly to you in UK or EU and WebzCas is in europe, worke on the operator side too and probably has a decent sense of how the game is played on that side of the pond.

[TheGooner]

On the surface it does not seem likely that 32Red has a strong case does it?

32x.com has been around PRIOR to their company, and a quick look at the website shows does not appear to be squatting on any brand images or trademarks. I cannot see much scope for confusion.

Have you registered 32x as a brand or trademark previously? That would certainly help.

However, having said all this let's not forget that the law is an ass and justice is frequently not served. Legal battles are often NOT about whether you are right, especially if one side has significantly more money and more experience in these issues.

[32x]

I would definitely have to say that I am glad that I have honestly marketed my domain for the term "32x", and not 32red as they have claimed. I feel that they have no leg with which to stand and so does my representing law firm, in my opinion.. My Google analytics are proof of my searches. 32, red, and 32red have never shown in the history of my searches on Google or Yahoo, to the best of my recollection, in yahoo site search and Google analytics.

This is not just about my domain. This company is, in my opinion, destroying the gaming industry; they are part of the problem. In my opinion, we are trying to survive and they are profiting on our demise...

I am not sure if I will win or lose, but I will not hand my domain to them. I will fight!!

[Mojo Kris]

Tell them to go jump. It obviously wasn't registered in bad faith, nor is it trying to infringe on their trademarks. I doubt they would take this one to UDRP as they would lose.

[theGman]

It appears they have been going on somewhat of a spree in this regard - i read that they did a similar thing with Topboss and the domain was handed over even though it predated 32red . They seem to be applying a bully boy tactic at the present time.

Not to sure re the legalities and im a bit cynical when it comes to lawyers , they will always say you have a good case wont they Good luck and if it goes legal let us know how it turns out.

[32x]

It appears they have been going on somewhat of a spree in this regard - i read that they did a similar thing with Topboss and the domain was handed over even though it predated 32red . They seem to be applying a bully boy tactic at the present time.

I am just reposting below what I put on CAP, but it still applies...

I noticed that there are several companies that, are in my opinion and knowledge, in direct violation right here on GPWA. They all have the term "red" in their domains and they are gambling sites, not affiliate portals such as we are.. This makes me, and this is just an opinion, feel that they are NOW after our portals. To the best of my recollection, WH was a corporation. So why do they attack our portals right here on GPWA where we are supposed to be protected, and then create a thread bragging about it? In my opinion, that's cowardly!

[arkyt]

So why do they attack our portals right here on GPWA where we are supposed to be protected

No protection for the affiliate here - GPWA will side with their sponsors if at all possible after all they need to protect that income more than they do any affiliate - we are a dime a dozen in their eyes.

[MichaelCorfman]

Earlier registration of a domain by itself does not necessarily avoid a trademark issue. Let me give an example. If 32x.com was registered before 32red.com, but was not used with respect to the international class in which 32 red subsequently obtained a trademark, then the earlier-date argument would only apply to the nature of the prior use. So, switching the domain to be used for a different purpose would be considered only from the date of the newer use, not from the date of original registration and uses for other purposes. Similarly, one could probably legally register and use the domain 32red.biz for a business that sold red dye number 32 without any trademark issue at all (unless the courts ruled that 32red was a famous trademark and that the similarity in names could cause confusion in the marketplace even across international classes of service).

I would say that there is no legal requirement to turn over the domain name, in any case. The only legal requirement that could be imposed would be to cease and desist using the domain in a way that caused potential or actual confusion in the marketplace in the matching international class.

Based on what you have stated, it would seem that for this particular domain Sega would have a more legitimate claim in the context of your prior content.

In order to be truly protected against a court order that 32red might try to obtain you would probably need to file for a trademark for 32x (or 32x.com) with the U.S. Patent and Trademark office. You would probably have a decent chance of obtaining such a trademark if you filed for it. Then any challenges that could be attempted through domain name disputes would be thwarted since I believe an attempt obtain a domain name from someone else who holds a valid registered trademark on that name is not possible.

Incidently, 32Red does have a trademark application outstanding in the U.S. The application was filed on June 21, 2005 and then the registration process became quite delayed with their failing to respond to the trademark office for a while, and the application nearly becoming abandoned. Then, finally it moved forward and was just published for opposition in the U.S. on June 14, 2011. So it is still not actually a registered trademark within the United States quite yet.

Michael