News

Wednesday, 24 March 2010 03:38

The apparent setback in Thursday's online casino domain case in Kentucky is seen as a signal that impending victory is near, explains Joe Brennan, chairman of iMEGA.

A Kentucky Supreme Court judgment reached on Thursday effectively stated that the objections raised by iMEGA and IGC over the State's seizure of 141 online casino domains have no legal standing to be able to represent the domain name owners in this case. However, the court has also indicated that it may be willing to take a look at the merits of this case as long as the owners of the domain names identify themselves. This is seen as an encouraging development by iMEGA representatives.

On iMEGA's website, Joe Brennan's take on what the court has said is that there is a minor legal technicality which has to be cleared up first before the court is able to rule against the case brought by the State of Kentucky. Brennan says that if an online casino owner were to come forward, the arguments against the forfeiture of the 141 online casino domains will be clearly favoured by the court.

Brennan points out that in that written decision, there is clear indication by the court that they are in agreement with the arguments put forward by iMEGA with an invitation to re-file so that there can be a resolution of the technicality. In other words, the Court is, according to Brennan, intimating that all that needs to happen is for at least one online casino domain owner to make themselves known and come forward and victory is likely to be theirs.

Brennan has indicated that iMEGA will work with any of the online casino operators involved to meet the conditions set out by the court and re-file their objection. The Supreme Court made an allowance in its ruling that would enable a re-filed motion to dispense with the appeals process. It could then move before the court again, without needing further presentation from each of the parties involved.

This allowance would appear to imply that there has already been consideration by the court on the issues pertaining to the case in addition to the standing question, meaning they may respond with little delay to a motion that they find has been correctly filed. The decision certainly appears to indicate the court may well be in favour of the arguments made against the seizure of the domain names.