MGM granted domain name injunction

A federal judge in America has sided with MGM Resorts and granted a preliminary injunction against several entrepreneurs that had previously purchased domain names associated with properties owned by the hotel and gaming giant.

Las Vegas-based MGM filed a motion in December against six defendants after alleging that they were ‘cyber squatters’ asking the United States District Court for the District of Nevada to seize seven domain names that feature the names Aria, Bellagio, Circus Circus, Excalibur, Luxor, Mandalay Bay and MGM.

The sites, AriaPoker.com, BellagioOnlinePoker.com, CircusCircusPoker.com, ExcaliburPoker.com, LuxorPoker.com, MandalayBayOnlinePoker.com and MGMPoker.com, were purchased between 2002 and 2005 and MGM alleged that there was a potential for confusion with their casino properties and wants the names returned to its ownership.

Judge Philip Pro agreed late last week and has ordered hosting firms GoDaddy.com Incorporated, Wild West Domains Incorporated and Melbourne IT Incorporated to place the domains on hold and lock and deposit them with his Court.

“Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury to its valuable trademarks and associated goodwill if the defendants are not enjoined from transferring the AriaPoker.com, BellagioOnlinePoker.com, CircusCircusPoker.com, ExcaliburPoker.com, LuxorPoker.com, MandalayBayOnlinePoker.com and MGMPoker.com domain names, which contain plaintiff’s trademarks, namely Aria, Bellagio, Circus Circus, Excalibur, Luxor, Mandalay Bay and MGM, to other domain name registrars or from transferring their registrations for the domain names to other persons or entities,” read the judgement issued on Friday.

The judgement also stated that MGM is ‘likely to succeed on the merits of its claims for cyber squatting and trademark infringement’ and found that the issuance of a preliminary injunction is in the interests of the public because such a motion would ‘protect consumers against deception and confusion arising from domain names containing plaintiff’s trademarks and from the use of plaintiff’s trademarks by persons other than plaintiff’.