Bodog's Domain Names Confiscated

[jetset]

BODOG VS. 1ST TECHNOLOGIES LITIGATION CONTINUES

Bodog founder cannot be held in contempt for non-appearance

Bodog seemed to score a few points this week in the peripheral legal skirmishes surrounding its bitter patent and domains dispute with 1st Technologies.

The central issue of a $49 million default judgement issued against Bodog, in which its domains were placed under the control of 1st Technologies remains at the centre of the acrimonious litigation, but Bodog lawyers achieved some relief in the latest exchanges.

The attempt by 1st Technologies to get Bodog founder Calvin Ayre into a Nevada courtroom - a possibility frought with potential personal danger for the high profile online gambling executive - has apparently failed. In a statement, Bodog claims that a federal magistrate judge in Las Vegas ruled in favour of a motion initiated by the [Bodog] defence team stating that Bodog Entertainment Group, S.A. is not a resident of Nevada, and therefore is not subject to examination under Nevada law.

Additionally, the judge ruled that Ayre is not required to appear for examination because he too is not a resident of Nevada.

Therefore a contempt motion by 1st Technology based on Ayre failing to appear for examination in Nevada was denied.

Meanwhile, Ayre's company continued to strengthen its legal position by withdrawing the right of the now defunct Bodog Entertainment Group SA to provide domain management services to various Bodog group businesses, and the group is now insisting that Bodog Entertainment stop using its trademarks and brands.

But it is an action in Washington state that is probably more important than the Nevada skirmishing. A Bodog legal team has launched a request for clarification by the courts (see previous InfoPowa reports) which seeks a decision on whether domain names are property that can be subject to seizure to satisfy a judgment.

This is a pivotal issue in the dispute with 1st Technologies as Bodog fights to recover its confiscated domains, which currently languish and are losing value according to recent independent evaluations. If the court rules that, like the state of Virginia, domain names can not be seized to satisfy a judgement, then the default judgement obtained by 1st Technologies [which is itself being contested] could be in difficulties.

Bodog points out that the outcome of this inquiry could have important implications for the interests of international domain owners registered in Washington state, where there are several prominent domain name registrars. The outcome has the potential to undermine the business viability of Washington State domain registrars. This could possibly lead domain name owners to opt to move their businesses to other states with more favorable legal structures or out of the U.S. altogether and into more domain name protective jurisdictions such as the European Union.

[GrandMaster]

He should not feel too smug. The US government declared that it had the right to kidnap anyone wanted for crimes in the US and that the Supreme Court had sanctioned it.

[jetset]

PATENT ENFORCER IN ACTION AGAIN

1st Technology files suit against seven more online gambling operators

Seven more online gambling companies find themselves undergoing the unwelcome patent attention of Dr. Scott Lewis and his 1st Technology company this week, with the costly Bodog dispute apparently at a stalemate.

The St. Louis law firm Simon Passanate has filed patent enforcement suits on behalf of 1st Technology in the Eastern District court of Missouri, citing four Costa Rican, two Norwegian and one Netherlands Antilles companies, according to a report from the online gambling information portal Gambling 911

The companies were named as Digital Gaming Solutions SA, Costa Rica International Sports, Action Poker Gaming Enterprises and SBG Global in Costa Rica; Playsafe Holding AS and eCom Enterprises in Norway and Digital Gaming Network, Ltd., in the Netherlands Antilles jurisdiction.

As was the case with Bodog and an earlier and now settled case against Sportingbet, the plaintiff alleges infringement of the 1st Technology US patent 5 564 001, issued in 2001 and entitled “Method and System for Interactively Transmitting Information Over A Network Which Requires Reduced Bandwidth.”

According to the 911 report, the plaintiff seeks an immediate halt to further patent infringement, treble damages and the impoundment and destruction of all infringing products.

Anthony G. Simon, representing 1st Technology commented: “1st Technology is a leading technology licensing company that invests considerable resources in developing its intellectual property and is dedicated to protecting and enforcing the same.” Simon's law firm has an impressive track record in intellectual property actions.

Dr. Lewis, who heads up 1st Technology, told 911: "Our initial goal here, as in all of our cases, is to reach swift and fair settlements that respect our intellectual property rights for companies with U.S. facing operations and utilize our patents...if we are unable to reach a swift resolution of the dispute, we move forward quickly and apply all of our resources to enforce all of our U.S. legal rights."

Dr. Lewis and his company have been embroiled in a long running and bitterly acrimonious dispute with the Bodog group and its erstwhile CEO Calvin Ayre in recent months (see previous InfoPowa reports) following the award of a $48 million default judgement against Bodog and the confiscation of its domains, forcing an extensive re-branding exercise by the online gambling group. Ayre has consistently claimed that service of the court documents was not effected.