|These days, the must-have for an internet casino is a name with Las Vegas associations - if they can get away with it, as permission is rarely forthcoming. This week, Las Vegas-based casino group the Mandalay Resort Group won court orders to prevent six Internet site operators from misappropriating its trademarks, and filed another four lawsuits alleging similar infringements of its brand names.|
According to the Las Vegas Sun, the trademarks in question are for Mandalay’s Luxor, Excalibur, Gold Strike and Mandalay brands. Three Florida-based companies, a New Orleans entity, a hotel bookings web site ower and a Santa Monica, California, entity were ordered to stop appropriating the trademarks in recent rulings.
Mandalay had issued proceedings against Coral Gables entities Highland International Investment Ltd., Coventry Investments Ltd. and Cambridge Capital Investment Ltd. in U.S. District Court, alleging they linked their domain names to a portal website.
US District Judge James Mahan ordered the defendants to transfer their domain names i-luxor.com,' 'emandalay .com,' 'i-mandalay.com,''iluxor.com' and 'e-mandalay.com' to Mandalay.
U.S. District Judge Lloyd George ordered New Orleans-based More Unused Domains, which was accused by Mandalay of linking the domain name 'luxorhotellasvegas.com' to a portal website, to return the name.
U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt also ordered Richard Jones,owner of online hotel booking websites HotelDiscounts.com and HotelAgent.com; and an Internet casino operator, Interactive One S.R.O.; to return the domain names 'goldstrikecasino.com' and 'luxorhotel.com' to Mandalay.
Mandalay, which owns the Gold Strike hotel-casinos in Jean, Nev., and Robinsonville, Miss., accused Jones, an affiliate of Interactive One, of 'goldstrikecasino.com' to Slotland, an Internet casino allegedly owned by Interactive One. He was also accused of linking the domain name 'luxorhotel.com' to his hotel reservations websites.
Other suits filed by Mandalay were against several Internet casino operations and their owners for violating the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection act, which relates to the US federal trademark act.