BODOG VS. 1ST TECHNOLOGIES LITIGATION CONTINUES (Update)

7 December 2007

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.

Online Casino News courtesy of InfoPowa