32Red-Hills damages case to be heard today
32Red's case against William Hill Online for costs and damages relating to a four-year trademark dispute begins tomorrow at 2pm GMT in London's High Court.
32Red’s case against William Hill Online for costs and damages relating to a four-year trademark dispute will get underway at 2pm GMT in London’s High Court.
The online casino brand, that has recently gained licensing approval and begun operating in Italy, has spent a significant sum on legal costs on the case since formally beginning proceedings against William Hill in August 2009 claiming that the use of a similar sounding name for an online casino was confusing for players, and that it has led to a loss of income with players opening accounts with 32Vegas believing they were gambling with 32Red.
During the opening arguments that same year 32Red said it believed that 32Vegas made around £4m earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) in 2008. 32Vegas has since been rebranded as 21Nova.
At the time, 32Red CEO Ed Ware (pictured) told eGaming Review: “William Hill have been benefiting from this while we have been losing out. It is a big organisation trading on our name and reputation and we will look to recover appropriate damages and compensation.”
32Vegas casino was established in 2006 as a Playtech licensee that was transferred over to William Hill as part of the deal that saw the establishment of William Hill Online in October last year.
On 21 January 2011 the High Court of Justice ruled in favour of 32Red with the largely UK-facing casino business saying it would seek compensation from its fellow Gibraltar licensee for repayment of “significant legal costs”. An inquiry was then launched to assess the extent of “damages or profits” arising from the alleged infringement; as well as an injunction to prevent the use of 32Vegas marks in the EC.
The court found that William Hill’s use of 32Vegas and 32V had infringed 32Red’s European Community (EC) registered trademarks. “The court held that William Hill’s 32Vegas casino signs were sufficiently similar to 32Red’s marks to cause a likelihood of confusion among consumers,” a statement read. It added that William Hill’s infringement “caused detriment to the distinctive character and repute of 32Red’s trademarks” and dismissed William Hill’s counterclaim as to the validity of 32Red’s trademark rights in the UK and European Community.
Less than a month later the same court sided with 32Red granting it an injunction preventing William Hill Online from using the 32Vegas trademark anywhere in the European Union and ruling that WHO should publish the judgement on a number of its largest websites including Affiliates United, the affiliate program for all of its brands.
The case for legal costs and compensation was expected to conclude shortly after the injunction decision was announced on 10 February 2012 however this has been delayed by more than a year.
In a separate case on 14 May last year The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) found in favour of 32Red in the operator’s trademark dispute with California company Baysound LLC over the 32x.com domain.
The domain had been held by Baysound since 2006, and was used as an egaming affiliate portal, with WIPO noting in its findings that 32x.com had provided visitors with links to the sites of a number of 32Red’s rival operators.
32Red secured UK and European trademarks on the word 32 since 2009 and 2010 respectively, while its European Community trademarks for 32Red (word and figurative) date back to 2002.
The WIPO found that the domain was registered and used in bad faith, explaining: “It is unlikely that the respondent, being involved in the online gaming industry and with casino gaming affiliates, was not aware of “www.32red.com” as an online gaming website in 2006 and that the choice of ” 32x”’ was merely coincidental.”