32Red win Court Case against Will Hill

[Webzcas]

This is absolutely fantastic news!

Ed contacted me about half an hour ago with news of the judgement.

Which includes:

The Court ruled in favour of 32Red, holding that the use of “32 Vegas” and “32V” infringe 32Red’s European Community Registered Trade Marks.

The Court held that William Hill’s 32 Vegas casino signs were sufficiently similar to 32Red’s marks to cause a likelihood of confusion amongst consumers.

The Court also held that William Hill’s infringement caused detriment to the distinctive character and repute of 32Red’s trade marks. The Court dismissed William Hill’s counterclaim as to the validity of 32Red’s trade mark rights in the UK and European Community.

Full details here:

http://www.casinos-online.co.uk/news...in-high-court/

[Casinomeister]

I was one of the expert witnesses that testified in the High Court in London for this case. It was truly an fascinating and enlightening experience.

[rainmaker]

Thanks for keeping us updated Webzcas. That was good news. We dont like casinos who tries to take advantage of the good name of 32red.

Bad William Hill. Bad.

[petro]

Good! WH have been deliberatly annoying to me lately. I am sure 32Red wouldn't stoop to annoying players.

[susanjbo]

Well done, Ed and crew. I wonder if we are able to display some of the huge amount of evidence against WH.

[vinylweatherman]

Well done, Ed and crew. I wonder if we are able to display some of the huge amount of evidence against WH.

It's in the forum. Numerous posters have confused the two casinos when asking questions, and posting complaints.

One interesting thing is that the "32vegas" was the idea of the previous owners, and Will Hill soon renamed the casino after they took over. This shows that a new company IS legally liable for actions taken under previous ownerships after a takeover, thus demonstrating that the legal liabilities for wrongful actions transfer, as well as the assets.

A certain Canadian woman might be interested in the technical details of this case, or rather her lawyer might

[susanjbo]

I was one of the expert witnesses that testified in the High Court in London for this case. It was truly an fascinating and enlightening experience.

Yes, i must agree, my hubby displayed similar feelings even thou his evidence was through video confrencing here in melbourne. Still the highest court of the land, must have been amazing. I gather we could post the evidence he submitted in the forum now hey meister? Now that a determination has been made.

But considering WHill had such a bad track record of deceptive, misleading and blantant fraudulant activities, the high court judge could only really side with the plaintiff in my opinion.

Personally id like to see a breakdown of how the high courts determination was achieved. I understand thats all publicly avaliable.

Also, i wonder if a group player legal case against William Hill is in the pipeworks.

[Seventh777]

Woot wtg 32Red, not sure if anyone else has experienced this, but, when googling casino related sites you click on a certain site and it goes straight to William Hill, 2nd click and it goes where it was supposed to wtf??.

With this in mind I cannot for the life of me work out why Sky Vegas has not done the same thing, I mean come on the Vegas part is pretty understandable but how many casinos use the word *SKY* in their name? Vegas Sky..... nope, that just has to be the exact same approach of W.H. IMHO.

[Nate]

I have noted 32Royal, 32Vegas and Spin32... Are all of these related to William Hill?

Nate

[vinylweatherman]

I have noted 32Royal, 32Vegas and Spin32... Are all of these related to William Hill?

Nate

It seems the court held that the use of "32" in relation to an online casino breached the 32Red trademark, therefore all these other "32" sites are likely to lose any action taken against them by 32Red. With a judgement in their favour over 32Vegas, it will be much easier to pursue cases against the likes of 32Royal and even Spin32.

I doub't any casino could claim words like "Vegas", "Gold", "VIP", etc as their own unique brand, because "everybody uses them".

when googling casino related sites you click on a certain site and it goes straight to William Hill, 2nd click and it goes where it was supposed to wtf??.

I expect this too could be taken to court, as it is "hijacking" one company's trademark to promote another. Trademark laws prevent other companies from reproducing phrases and images without permission. Strictly speaking, if the text "32 Red" is made into a hyperlink that sends the click through to, say, "32 Vegas (dot) com", it is STILL a breach of trademark, as well as misleading customers who would expect that clicking a link with said text would take them to a site owned by said company. It would be up to these other operators to take William Hill to court over these "creative" SEO strategies.