Bodog's Domain Names Confiscated


Banned User - flamming, disrespecting admin,
Dec 10, 2006

I'm not sure that I want this stuff here. The coldeye website is run by a guy who has been banned here twice for violating rule 1.6 and 1.11

1.6 - No "Libelous" Posts. Do not make posts that could be considered libelous, defamatory, or posting merely to cause harm to another's business. Opinions are expected, but do not attack others with accusations of criminal activity unless this has been proven in a court of law.

1.11 - Please do not exploit this board to promote your own personal agenda. If the moderators (and members) feel that you are spamming the board with links to your website, etc., your account may be suspended.

When you copy these ramblings and paste them here, you are giving this guy a platform that I really don't care to give. I don't mind you discussing these matters, but simply copying and pasting his posts undermine his banishment.

Thanks for your undersatnding.


RIP Brian
Feb 22, 2001


Bodog owner claims confiscated domains have lost value

The owner of the Bodog online gambling group fired another broadside at patent litigation opponent First Technologies this week on his blog Calvin Ayre, taunting 1st Tech's CEO Dr. Scott Lewis on an alleged decline in the Bodog domains he holds by court order.

The two companies are still locked in litigation over 1st Technologies claim that Bodog infringed patents on Internet technology, which led to Nevada and Washington judges awarding a $49 million default judgement against Bodog, and delivered the Bodog domains into the hands of 1st Technologies. Reacting fast, Bodog launched the new brand Bodog and continued its online gambling and entertainment facilities with minimal interruption.

Since then, Bodog founder Calvin Ayre has used his blog to repeatedly attack Scott Lewis and his company, describing it as a "patent troll." This has clearly irritated Lewis, who has asked Ayre to desist with the name calling. Judging by Ayre's latest posts that is not going to happen.

This week, Ayre claims that unnamed "domain evaluation experts" have advised him that the old Internet domains held by Lewis have declined in value, whilst the new domains have flourished.

"Although the value of Bodog's old domains has taken a huge hit since Patent Troll Scott Lewis and 1st Technologies launched a patent infringement case against [Bodog], the new domain is now worth over $1 million," Ayre writes. In contrast, he reveals that the domains held by Lewis have declined, quoting the following valuations: domain value Jan. 17, 2007: $692,580 domain value as of Nov. 14, 2007: $264,930

"Well well well if this ain't a kick in the pants then I don't know what is," Ayre crows: "After 2.5 months of having all of Bodog's old domains black holed by the Patent Trolls over at 1st Technologies, domain evaluation experts say Bodog's original domains have lost over 75% of their value, while the new Bodoglife domain is now worth over $1 million dollars and climbing."

The Bodog founder goes on to explain that several factors establish a domain's value, such as traffic (number of daily unique visitors), brandability (presence, relationship with customers, cultural relevance, emotional connection, easy to remember), search engine compatibility (listed in all major search engines, search engine friendly content), page rank (number of relevant websites that link to your site), domain extensions (.com), and linguistics (easy to pronounce) for starters.

"But one of the main determining factorsespecially in the case of Bodog.comis domain parking revenue," Ayre claims. "Why? It's simple: Revenue is a measurable factor and comparisons can be made for revenue to sale price of other domains."

"In our case we still maintain US and international trademarks on Bodog for the areas of entertainment (i.e. we are in many international domains such as," Ayre explains. "This means Bodog cannot be trademarked by anyone else. So thiscombined with its having lost all of its search ranking, along with now being the top-ranked site for Bodog searchmakes nearly valueless to anyone but us. Anyone who bought, as an example, would immediately be in court with us fighting a trademark case and thus making it difficult to sell for any high amount.

"Scott Lewis and the rest of the Patent Trolls over at 1st Tech really did not understand the Internet or branding when they shut those domains offit was a pretty stupid conclusion to a fairly sophisticated legal muggingthey got so greedy at the last moment that their hormones started making decisionsand instead of quietly telling us they could shut them off and allow us to quietly send them a face-saving payment they went ahead and did it and then sent in that now famous extortion email that we ignored," the Bodog chief taunts, although that last sentence perhaps indicates a solution that might have been.

Ayre ends his current attack with a reminder that Bodog is not in this [1st Technologies] lawsuit, reiterating that the company is " assetless ex-supplier that shut down its operations in Sept. 2006 and was doing domain management for us that got sued."

Indicating that the legal battle has some time yet to run, he adds: "This is only a domain rights law issue to Bodog; it's not a patent case from our perspective. There is no winning outcome in this case left for the Patent Trolls over at 1st Tech. Even if they are finally able to sell the domains they stole from us, this will not cover their legal bills to dateand I predict their bills have only just begun with some of the fun I see coming their way."

It appears that 1st Technologies is maintaining the low profile approach to the issue that has characterised its claims to date - no further statements have been issued.


RIP Brian
Feb 22, 2001


Online gambling group requests ruling on status of domains

The ongoing and acrimonious patent and domains dispute between 1st Technologies and Bodog Entertainment Group SA took a new direction last week with a novel motion filed by the Bodog legal team.

The motion, filed on November 13 in the same court which ordered the confiscation of Bodog domains in a $47 million default judgement that is still being contested, asks the court to answer a question which has not yet been answered in Washington law:

"Are Internet domain names considered "property" that can be subject to seizure to collect on a judgment?"

For Bodog Entertainment Group, S.A., the answer is a resounding "No," says a statement from the company, which is waiting for a decision, this week.

Specifically, Bodog Entertainment Group have asked the Washington court reconsider its prior ruling granting a writ of execution which permitted 1st Technology LLC to seize thousands of Internet domain names, including domain names that incorporated Bodog trademarks.

Through its lawyers, Bodog Entertainment Group, S.A. points out that there is no previously established case law in the state of Washington which specifically permits Internet domain names to be seized or finds that domain names are "property" that can be seized under Washington law.

Defense team lawyer James Nguyen, an entertainment, intellectual property and Internet law specialist at Foley & Lardner LLP, explained: "This is a new legal issue triggered by the emergence of Internet technology."

Because there are no current legal decisions in Washington about this important point, the defending legal team is asking the Washington judge to look to established law in the state of Virginia, which holds that domain names should not be subject to seizure.

The state of Virginia is an appropriate jurisdiction for legal reference, because the second largest domain name registrar in North America, Network Solutions, is located in Virginia. Virginia courts thus have considerable experience with Internet domain name legal issues.

Furthermore, Nguyen points out that "in a number of jurisdictions, trademarks are not considered assets that are subject to seizure."

Bodog Entertainment Group, S.A.'s legal team therefore argues that domain names which incorporate the Bodog and related trademarks cannot be transferred, because those domain names could not be used by a third party (such as anyone who might purchase the domain name through an Internet auction) without infringing on Bodog trademarks.

As Bodog Entertainment Group, S.A.'s motion argues that if a court does not have the power to permit seizure of trademarks, it likewise should not have the power to seize or transfer domain names which contain those trademarks.

"This is a groundbreaking case in the muddy waters of Internet law, and we are confident that we have many aspects in our favor to [get] some clarity on this issue and have our domains returned to us," said Bodog Founder Calvin Ayre.

The motion was filed on Nov. 13 in the case 1st Technology, LLC v. Bodog Entertainment Group, S.A., Superior Court for State of Washington, County of King, Case No. 07-2-25305-0 SEA, and is currently under consideration before the Honorable John Erlick.


I predict a riot.
Oct 17, 2004
Location, Location!
What a fascinating thread... Just spent twenty minutes thoroughly engrossed in the to'ings and fro'ings!

Thank you Jetset specifically for the tempered, balanced summaries of what often verged on becoming heated, biased nonsense.

Ultimately, and regardless of any personal opinion of the man, C.A has built and maintained a hugely successful and largely trusted operation -- in an industry littered with less that reputable people and organisations.

A bold, brash, "fighting talk" response is surely expected from the owner of an organisation that has built it's brand on the slogan "play hard"!

There may be 'out of court settlements', there may be long drawn out procrastinated legal action; there'll inevitably be good and bad publicity on both sides. Ultimately - Bodog aren't going to be disappearing anywhere, anytime soon...


Banned User - troll posts - flaming
Jun 3, 2006
Hell on Earth
jetset said:
This week, Ayre claims that unnamed "domain evaluation experts" have advised him that the old Internet domains held by Lewis have declined in value, whilst the new domains have flourished.
Calvin Ayre is full of it.

I do agree that the old bodog domain names are losing value everyday they are not up and running.

However, as I posted in the bodog SEO thread that was split off of this thread, has been penalized in google for paid links and some other shady SEO stuff and the new bodoglife domain names do not appear in google for any money keywords at all. And if the domain name is penalized and not appearing for money keywords in google, it ain't worth spit.

I thought that Calvin Ayre was a smart guy, he should know that the domain market sets domain name prices, not some unknown, unnamed "experts". is worth exactly what someone is will to pay for it and not a penny more.

I asked around and I don't know anyone in the domain name market that thinks that or are worth any more than $50 grand USD to anyone but the folks at Bodog (or those that want leverage to get money out of them).

What could anyone but bodog do with domain name anyway? Start a new casino/sportsbook/poker room on the old domain name, I'll lay odds that would go over big (sarcastic).... and if I was this Lewis guy, I'd do it, at least he might get his money that way.... lol


RIP Brian
Feb 22, 2001


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.


Dormant account
Jan 21, 2004
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.


RIP Brian
Feb 22, 2001


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.