Belle Rock / MG confusion

[rainmaker]

So, I have a question.

As most of you will know, Gaming Club, Jackpot City, Lucky Nugget and River Belle Casino are part of Belle Rock.

Gaming Club, River Belle and Jackpot City have all stated in several WIPO (The World Intellectual Property Organization) disputes that their casino sites, gamingclub.com, jackpotcity.com and riverbelle.com receives about 250.000 visitors each month per site. In total about 750.000 visitors each month for all of these three sites.

(They also stated that an amount in excess of USD 50.000 per month is spent on advertising, marketing and other promotional activities per site)

Anyway, Micorgaming software system limited has stated this (from the case file) in a WIPO dispute (“The Complainant” is Microgaming), :


The Complainant was founded in 1994 and developed the world's first true online casino software, which is currently utilised by more than 100 online casinos, including prominent casino groups on the Internet such as Ladbrokes.com and the Carmen Media group. The websites of these online casinos collectively receive in excess of 3 million visitors each month


Belle Rock states that 3 of their sites receives about 750.000 visitors each month. We can only assume that they also will claim the same amount of visitors for Lucky Nugget. This will mean that they probably claims to receive about 1 000.000 visitors each month for 4 of their casinos. Microgaming claims that their casinos in a total receives about 3 million visitors each month

My question is, does not this seems a bit strange? I mean, if Belle Rock claims to have 1 000.000 visitors on 4 casino sites. Then I guess 2 000.000 visitors will be divided for the rest. ”The rest” in this meaning will be about 115 casinos including for example 32red and Betway.


Notes.

- The complainant in cases for Belle Rock was Stanworth Development Limited. They owns the mentioned trademarks.

- Both Microgaming and Stanworth Development Limited was represented by Bowman Gilfillan Inc. in these cases. Bowman G. is a South African law firm.

Case ref:

Case No. D2011-0253. 2011 ( River Belle )
Case No. D2011-0251. 2011. ( Gaming Club )
Case No. D2009-1103. 2009 ( Jackpot City )
Case No. D2008-1918. 2009. ( Microgaming )

[rainmaker]

And I can add that one WIPO case, where Riverbelle (Stanworth Development Limited) was the complainant, was about the domain "riverbellepoker.com".

William Hill had allegedly registered "riverbellepoker.com" through one of their companies.

Thats bad William Hill. Bad bad and bad. (as we know...not the first time or what 32red? )

By the way, the case was ruled in favor of River Belle this month. So rivebellepoker.com now redirects players to coolhandpoker.com

[ergopro]

Oh yeah, Bowman Gilfillan.
Lost one of my domains to them (Microgaming) and had that company sending me a bunch of legal stuff. Decided it was kinda useless to start fighting over one single domain. Especially when they seemed to have won all earlier related cases.
What makes it really funny, they seem to have sold it (my domain) to Brightshare after that.

[rainmaker]

Oh yeah, Bowman Gilfillan.
Lost one of my domains to them (Microgaming) and had that company sending me a bunch of legal stuff. Decided it was kinda useless to start fighting over one single domain. Especially when they seemed to have won all earlier related cases.
What makes it really funny, they seem to have sold it (my domain) to Brightshare after that.

Yeah, Bowman Gilfillan

I have seen one case that they have lost (domain), but I don`t remember if it was about Microgaming or a Belle Rock casino.

[rainmaker]

ergopro, I was looking for something else now and stumbled over the case again where Bowman Gilfillan lost.

The disputed was about the domain name : casinogamingclub.com

The complainant was the Belle Rock casino- Gaming Club. (Stanworth Development Limited of Douglas)

So it is really possible to "win" a dispute agains them

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/s...ase=D2011-0250