Update: Kentucky Sees Domains Battle Continued

Another attempt at blocking Kentucky domain high jacking

On Dec.6 occurred another attempt at preventing the state of Kentucky from seizing the rights of 141 online gambling-related domain names, both those that did and did not service the US players – this time, attorneys representing the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association (iMEGA) re-filed a motion to intervene in the Franklin Circuit Court in Kentucky.

It was stated in the motion that “iMEGA has surmounted the legal hurdle (set by the Supreme Court of Kentucky) to permit it to intercede on the basis of associational standing, due to the fact that one of its member organisations - Yatahay Limited, rightsholder to the domain “truepoker.com” - had provided proof of its membership in the association, and its reliance on the association’s actions to prevent further damages to their holdings.”

The iMEGA lawyers continued saying that the Court should consider the jurisdictional and constitutional questions the seizure actions raised, because the entire action taken by Kentucky and the lower court “has no basis in the Kentucky statutes.”

In the same court two years ago, after holding a secret hearing with attorneys representing Kentucky’s Secretary of Public Safety, Judge Thomas D. Wingate, ordered freezing of each domain’s rights by their registrar, pending seizure by the Commonwealth.

In regards to this issue, iMEGA opines that its goal was to force the sites using the domains to pay financial settlements in order to reacquire the rights of use. However, those attempts were successfully blocked by iMEGA after the Kentucky Court of Appeals prohibited the lower court from proceeding with the seizures.

After this, the whole matter was transferred back to the trial court by decision of the Kentucky Supreme Court, so that there could be a finding of fact regarding iMEGA’s standing to represent the 141 domain names.

And in its this week’s motion iMEGA claimed that for the best interest of judicial economy and due to the fact that Kentucky’s attorneys requested a procedure which has no grounds in the law, the court should deny the Commonwealth’s motion for a “case management order”, which iMEGA’s attorneys demonstrate is in fact a “motion for a forfeiture hearing by another name.”