On April 15th, 2011, the US Department of Justice seized the domains and bank accounts of Pokerstars, Full Tilt, and Absolute Poker. One week later we know how they did it, who helped them, and if players will be getting their money back!

The arrest warrant in rem in the parallel civil forfeiture case (11 Civ. 2564) involving PokerStars, FullTilt, and UB is out. This is the instrumentality through which the domain names were redirected by the FBI to the notices up on the sites. The only sites affected by this are: www.pokerstars.com, www.fulltiltpoker.com, www.ub.com, www.ultimatebet.com, and www.absolutepoker.com.

The warrant directs the .com registrar (VeriSign) to direct the name servers to the addresses specified in the warrant or such other name servers or IP addresses as directed by the FBI.

These domains have been locked by the registry (and by the registrar in the case of www.ultimatebet.com – this domain remains with GoDaddy pending a final disposition of the domain seizure case in Kentucky) and now cannot be moved without a court order or the consent of the Department of Justice. I understand that the rest of the domains (save and except for www.ultimatebet.com) are registered with foreign registrars.

The problem with the WSOP creeping up on us is that sometimes we tend to ignore the run up to the biggest tournament series of the year. March is a big month for poker tournaments, and it shows in the people that came out on top in this month’s winners. From Erik Seidel proving he needs to be in a $20k+ buy-in to win anything to a couple pros making back-to-back final tables, this was a big month for the tournament pro. And its not even June yet. As for the losers, well, I’ll admit I had to nit-pick this month for a couple of them, but others were just too easy. Lets see who was noteworthy this month.

Winners

• Erik Seidel (4): Seriously Erik, only play the Players’ Championship and the HU High Roller in this year’s WSOP. You’ll lock up two bracelets and you can sit out the main event knowing you may very well still win Player of the Year because you are winning damn near everything else. Erik impressed again in March by winning the NBC Heads-up Championship, a gimmicky made-for-TV tournament sure but its still against some of the best in the business. It’s funny that he is having this kind of sick run just a couple months removed from being inducted into the Poker Hall of Fame. It is almost as if he felt like he needed to prove he earned it. (Writers Note: Which admittedly in my head he did. In my series on the Hall of Fame voting, he made the cut but got the least number of votes from me.)

• Vivek Rajkumar (1): A LAPC 2nd place finish and a Bay 101 4th place finish makes for back-to-back final tables in WPT events. Pretty impressive considering these two tournaments are probably amongst the toughest the WPT can provide. Also, the fact the guy has a Computer Engineering degree on top of his millions of tournament earning is just icing on the cake for why he’s a winner this month. Yea, I’m bias, so what?

• Tim West (1): Not to be outdone, Tim West actually won the Wynn Poker Classic main event and then came runner-up in the WSOP-C Regional Championship in Rincon (aka San Diego). Now, he’s not huge on the radar (unless he’s an internet player and I don’t know it….paging @jesswelman) but that might change at the pace he is running.

• The Pokerstars (1)/Wynn Partnership: What Pokerstars put into Steve Wynn’s drink to get him to agree to this we will never know. But this is a complete 180 from his prior stance on the issue of online gambling, and the fact that Pokerstars “landed” this partnership could be nothing short of amazing. Will this mean anything in the short term? Don’t know, there is a Nevada bill out that legalizes online gambling, but it has about as much of a chance as New Jersey’s in this writer’s opinion. Still, Stars is probably looking for a way to get into the US market by getting all buddy-buddy with the brick-and-mortars, and this was one hell of a way to show it.

Losers

• The Full Tilt (-1) /Station Casino Owner Partnership: Conversely, however, Full Tilt’s partnership with Fertitta Interactive looks like a “oh crap that site we pretend doesn’t exist signed a deal…SCRAMBLE!” Yea, deals like this are usually talked about way in advance, but having the second announcement with a less flashy alternative is not impressive. In fact, I’d say it looks a little sloppy. Its worth mentioning that Fertitta and Station Casinos are completely separate, and while the UFC brand might help Full Tilt get new customers, it just doesn’t feel as good as the Stars/Wynn deal.

• Daniel Negreanu (-1): I am sorry Daniel, but you lost the Superstar Showdown, you did not tie no matter what the official tally may say. My co-host on my podcast “Rabbit Hunt” beat me to the punch but I can say it in far fewer words. Even if 5000 roughly 4000 hands is not enough to determine who is better and he ran woefully under EV, its still a pretty good indication he was outclassed…at least this time. I’ll give Daniel credit for his comeback in the second week, but this was in no way a “Clash of the Titans”. Daniel was not in the same realm as isildur1 and he might have wanted to have some more practice before trying to take him on.

• Joe Sebok (-2)/Prahlad Friedman (-2)/Jon Aguiar (-1): Yea this wasnt going to miss my crosshairs in a million years. This whole saga was a mess from top to bottom, and I’m lumping the three of them together because all three of them failed miserably. Prahlad should have never played the John Racener card (“oh no I lost a lot of money against a known cheater time to call bullshit!”). Joe shouldn’t have sent a thinly veiled statement saying he had shit on Aguiar’s girl, then pseudo-apologize only to definitely suggest he has some real dirt on her. And finally, Jon shouldn’t have flown off the handle, posted the DM attempting to crowdsource some sympathy and justice, and then constantly bring up his girlfriend almost as if to call a bluff. The whole thing was a mess, and nobody looked particularly good at the end of the day.

• Mason Malmuth (-1): I’m totally content with getting personally blackballed from 2+2 for saying this: there is not a chance in hell that 2+2 is the poker community. Its like the people that aren’t members of 2+2 are suddenly alienated from existence. If that forum is the only poker community, then I’m glad to be an outsider…because the wise helpful 2+2 poster seems to be the exception rather than the rule. All Mason did was prove how big of an ego he has, and given the backlash regarding his statements…its unlikely too many people outside of “the poker community” approve of him being the mayor.

Coinflips

• Norm MacDonald (0): This has been a point of contention for some. Gabe Kaplan losing AJ Benza as someone to bounce his jokes off of made season 6′s commentary fall a little flat. Gabe’s replacement is either making people happy or disgusted, with very little room in between. Personally I don’t mind Norm taking Gabe’s place on the show, but I still think it would be a lot better if there was someone else in the book, and High Stakes Poker hasn’t seemed to figure that out yet.

• Anyone that played an April Fool’s Poker Media Gag (0): You wanna know why this didn’t come out on the 1st? Because I was going to originally write a WLC where UB was the Entity of the Month, isildur1 was the “Eff You” winner for beating down Daniel so hard, and whatever else I could have come up with. But instead I looked at the gags that were played rather than get creative and write my own. We were Fricke-rolled by The Micros (awesome), Pokerstars had its weird-as-fuck tournaments (not as fresh but still good), WSOP had “Strip Poker” introduced as an event (lame, plus my eyes will be glad that’s not true), and Pokernews tried telling us they were hiring a chip counter for every table (didn’t you read the media rules? gonna need 6 per table).

• 2+2 Posters (0): Nothing showed the signal-to-noise ratio more on 2+2 then the whole Sebok-Prahlad-Aguiar affair. While some people kept things civil, you know damn well people like Kevmath were working overtime to make sure the site didnt collapse under the weight of some of their poster’s shittiness. So props to the moderators and the intelligent posters, but not so much to the trolls.

The “Eff You, Sir/Madam” Award

• Mason Malmuth (-3): You thought I was going to go for the low-hanging fruit huh? Thought Sebok was an easy target for this months award for being an abject failure in the community? Well, here’s the thing, Sebok at least tried to come on and be reasonable. It wasn’t successful, although I don’t think anyone could have reasonably expected Joe to have any impact, but at least he tried. Mason, if he tried anything, it was to be a dick. In a very short time span, he proclaimed 2+2 as “the poker community”, which we’ve already touched on a little bit before. I get it, its Mason being Mason, but being a dick just because you happen to have a popular forum within the poker community does not make you God. Openly stating to Sebok that short of getting Paul on a moderated thread he’s got no reason to even be in the forum is…well…idiotic at best. At worst, well, it earns you the Fuck You award for March. Your forum isn’t the entire poker community Mason, because otherwise this post wouldn’t have passed moderation.

Entity of the Month

I don’t think anyone should be surprised by this but…

• Erik Seidel (2-time champ: 7): Yep, giving this one to Erik again because he’s really starting to show how much he can’t lose. He won the NBC heads up and for the most part won the Number 1 spot in ESPN’s Nuts segment, because Ivey was, is, and always will be a permanent fixture in the top spot for better or for worse. The guy is just playing absolutely amazing poker and his sense of humor (and guest appearances on shows like The Micros) keep him high on other people’s lists. If he can keep this up…well…there is no telling where he’ll end up. That said, he’s won “Entity of the Month” for two months out of the three…so there is a good chance we have a runaway winner for any potential “1st Annual WLC Awards”.

With Internet gaming, a lot of legislative maneuverings seem to come down to the wire – to a fleeting few moments of activity before deadlines. That may be because of the subject- matter; gambling is a net vote loser and, accordingly, politicians want to deal with it at the end of a schedule if they want to deal with it at all. This was one such day in New Jersey.

Today was Governor Christie’s deadline for taking some action (or inaction) on the Internet gaming measure approved by the New Jersey legislature earlier this year. First came word that Governor Christie was holding a press conference this morning. Would Internet gaming be discussed? Maybe! That’s all the poker cognoscenti needed to hear! Then, as Scarlet Robinson ably reported (here), nothing seemed to come of that. More waiting.

Later came word that the Governor vetoed the measure, which is clear from his letter to the State Senate. One person that I know called this; most others I canvassed was expecting a conditional veto, with Christie sending the measure back to the legislature and specifically objecting to the horseracing subsidy. (Interestingly, earlier today the New Jersey legislative website recorded the send-back from the Governor as a conditional veto. Now, they’ve changed it to reflect that it’s an absolute veto.)

I’ll leave it to others to discuss the politics and machinations of the Governor’s interaction with legislators and lobbyists over this measure. I suspect it will be a good story when it comes out.

Now what? The legislature can override the veto if it has the votes or it can take the Governor’s letter to heart and seek to put together a referendum on the matter in New Jersey. Or it could treat this as a conditional veto in all but name and try again and address some (horseracing subsidies) but not all (a referendum) of the Governor’s concerns.

This may be a setback for Internet gaming in the United States, but it’s really too soon to tell. Will other states take their cue from a veto in New Jersey? Maybe. Perhaps other states will distinguish New Jersey’s measure, which legalized an Internet version of any game currently offered in Atlantic City casinos, from an intrastate poker-only bill. On one level, the kind of focus and wrangling that’s happened in New Jersey gives traction to the people who assert that this really should be restricted to poker and regulated by Congress at a national level.

One thing is certain: further delay in New Jersey (whether it’s short- or long-term) is a win for the offshore unregulated casino and poker industries currently servicing US customers. They’ll continue to function in a legal grey area that’s only extended by a failure by the federal and state governments to act.

Many of the intellectual property issues I address as a gaming attorney are in poker representation agreements. These are agreements for poker pros to play for, endorse, and advertise for various poker brands, both Internet and land-based. Substantially all of the premier Internet poker sites with which I’m familiar employ pros. Some operators ask their pros to travel the world and represent their brands in high-profile land-based games and tournaments and on television. Other pros are incentivized to play more online and have less of a profile at bricks and mortar events.

I’ve acted for both poker pros and for poker operators in drafting and negotiating these types of agreements. The back-and-forth between the parties over who gets what specific rights to certain property (e.g., to the use of a personal branded website) and for how long is fascinating. It’s also critical to building poker brands and preserving one’s rights and value in poker properties. A pro negotiating one of these agreements will often want to ensure that her post-termination copyrights and rights of use are protected. An operator or a marketing rep will also want to be clear about what’s being purchased or licensed and the rights that are available to it post-termination.

The central question for the parties will be: what kind of commercial relationship are they after? In essence, what do they want from each other? The critical question for me as a lawyer is this: based on the commercial objectives, what are the rights of the parties that are in play based on the commercial objectives? Here are some of the things that I look out for in these kinds of contracts:

More…

I have a friend in the poker industry. He’s a fantastic player, very smart, and a successful entrepreneur. On top of it, he’s a great guy. He has started up, managed, and hosted several top-rated poker television shows. He’s no slouch; he knows his stuff.

A few months ago, he called me up and wanted to talk about moving his (then-current) show to a new venue, broadcast medium, and sponsor. Specifically, he wanted to know if he could take the name of his show with him to his new broadcast home. For purposes of the discussion, let’s call the show “Big Slick.” Was Big Slick his property?

Truthfully, but unhelpfully, I told him: “It depends.” To try to start to figure it out, I asked him a number of questions about Big Slick. (I was a fan of the show, but didn’t know how the name came about. I also hadn’t been his attorney when he started it, so I didn’t know how the show itself began and developed.)

Not all of the questions and the follow-ups are here, but below are a few of the initial and critical ones if you have intellectual property that you want to protect and carry with you through your poker career. Poker players and personalities know the value of branding, personalities, and trade names. Often, they just need to make better up-front efforts to safeguard that value.

1. What does the agreement say?

What did the written agreement between my guy and his promoter/broadcaster say? It turns out it didn’t say anything; there was no written agreement. Not having a written agreement doesn’t necessarily mean there’s no contract between the parties. Some important contracts can be verbal. But some laws specifically prohibit verbal contracts (for example, many jurisdictions prohibit verbal real estate contracts selling real estate has to be done by written agreement). More important, verbal contracts are invariably tougher to enforce than written contracts. Their terms often aren’t clear and, even when they are, there’s often a disagreement about whether the parties agreed to commit themselves to a contract, as such. A clearly drafted and properly executed written agreement solves both of these problems.

Anyway, back to my pal. When he and the promoter decided to collaborate, it was agreed that an advertising sponsor would pay a certain amount to broadcast the show (this wasn’t committed to writing, either). My friend hosted and produced the show. He came up with the name Big Slick and owned the corresponding web domain name. Some help was provided gratis by the promoter in putting together the Big Slick logo for the show. There was no term on the agreement between my friend and the promoter.

2. Who had trademark rights in Big Slick?

While I was on the phone with my friend, I did a quick search of the trademarks databases in the US Patent and Trademark Office and the Canadian Intellectual Property Office. Neither showed a registration for the Big Slick trademark. (Remember that Big Slick is a pseudonym; you’ll have to take my word that the real mark was and is not descriptive and otherwise fully registrable.) Which meant that neither my guy nor his promoter had a registered trademark in the name.

What about common law trademark rights? Common law trademark rights are rights obtained through use of a non-registered mark. To the extent that there is a paramount issue in trademarks, it’s this notion of use, and not just use in any manner, but use as a trademark. Both my buddy and the broadcaster had been promoting the name through marketing for the show. However, had they been using Big Slick as a trademark? The promoter had listed Big Slick on its website as a member of a family of shows that it broadcast and promoted. This wasn’t use as a trademark; this was arguably an indication that it had a licence from the trademark owner to call attention to the fact that it broadcast the show. My friend’s usage was much more consistent and compelling. He used Big Slick as a brand and a trademark. His website or service wasn’t just broadcasting Big Slick; his show was The Big Slick.

While my friend came up with the name, the logo was a collaboration. This highlights the difference between word marks and design marks. Word marks are trademarks that are bare words in any font, style, or size. “PartyPoker” is trademarked as a word mark around the world (confined to the wares and services set out in the particular mark) however it is written or it appears. Design marks are trademarked logos or words written in a specific font or style (or both); “PartyPoker” in the stylized lettering with which we’re all familiar is also trademarked as a design mark in several jurisdictions.

There was no registered design mark for Big Slick. My friend indicated that both he and his promoter had worked on it “together” and that both had used it in marketing the show. A key question here (for copyright purposes) was “who actually put pen to paper and designed the logo?” Often, there’s one person that did it, and here it was my guy. My buddy should have had the copyright and the better set of trademark rights because the logo had been used by him as a trademark.

3. Other Issues

As briefly mentioned above, copyright also came into our discussion, but this post is already getting long enough without drilling down into that. I asked my friend whether Big Slick had any value separate and apart from his involvement. That is, if he left and the promoter still had a show called Big Slick, what would it be worth, either as a show or as a bare name or design mark containing Big Slick? Setting aside the IP aspects of who owns what, there was a practical question of whether the parties were about to start fighting over something that might not be worth a fight.

At the end of the day, the promoter suggested that it had some rights in Big Slick and would need to have those rights bought out. I disagreed, based fundamentally on my guy’s use of the word and design marks as trademarks (see above). My friend - ever the serial entrepreneur - decided to create a whole new name and go forward with his new promoter. I told him that he still had considerable rights in Big Slick and that simply walking away wasn’t his only option, but I respected his decision. (A potential public fight about the name between the parties wasn’t without risk for either of them.)

The bottom line, of course, is that the parties are always well-advised to turn their minds to these questions when they’re establishing their relationship so that there’s little room for argument later on. My friend went with a new promoter on a new site, but this time we insisted on a written agreement. (A written contract doesn’t have to be anyone’s magnum opus or cost an arm and a leg. My friend’s agreement was three pages and my review took a few minutes.) In it, I specified that my friend was to retain all intellectual property rights in his new show, inclusive of the name and all trademarks. The promoter would have an unlimited and non-exclusive right to broadcast and host the show on its website. Both parties are happy with the arrangement.

My friend also owns the new associated Internet domain name and is considering a trademark application.

The moral of the story is: write it down in advance and think the issues through so that, when poker-related property that has been developed is valuable and people are parting ways, there’s less to fight about and fewer fees wasted on lawyers. As another like-minded lawyer friend of mine puts it: Tough contractual negotiations are always easier than tough settlement negotiations.

(Thanks to Michael Hilliard (my best friend, an eminent IP lawyer, and counsel to Microsoft) and to Jamie Bashtanyk (@TCTrademarks on Twitter and my go-to trademark agent), for correcting this blog post for me. However, any errors in this post are mine alone.)

Toronto-based Stu Hoegner writes a darn good disclaimer as a gaming attorney and legal advisor. You can follow him on Twitter @GamingCounsel.

I was all set this morning to write a blog entry on the continuing dispute in Kennedy & Omotoy v. Full Tilt Poker et al. (The original post by Dan Michalski was back in 2009.) This litigation is fascinating; it has bounced from state court to federal court and back to state court in California, and an update would be fun. But something else caught my eye: a public statement from the Alderney Gambling Control Commission stating that Alderney has signed a memorandum of understanding with the Nevada Gaming Control Board. The statement is here.

As just about everyone familiar with Internet gambling is aware, Alderney is one of the handful of jurisdictions worldwide that actually licenses online interactive gaming, including poker. (Other such jurisdictions include Gibraltar, Malta, the Isle of Man, Antigua, and Kahnawake.) Probably the most prominent poker website operating under Alderney’s regulation is www.fulltiltpoker.com. Obviously Tilt is a US-facing site, which is interesting fact number 1. Interesting fact number 2 is that Alderney only regulates i-gaming. This makes sense. The place is a speck of an island off the north-western coast of France with a population of 2,400; it doesn’t have any bricks and mortar casinos.

The agreement between Nevada and Alderney ”paves the way for enhanced cooperation in the field of gaming regulation.” Not too helpfully, the public statement specifies that this co-operation will extend to “the areas of sharing of information, expertise, knowledge and skills as well as exchange visits and training.” I hope for the sake of the Alderney parties that the “exchange visits” are mostly one-way and in Vegas, especially at this time of year.

So the Internet gaming regulator of a US-facing poker site (that, along with all currently US-facing poker sites) has a memorandum of understanding prescribing areas of co-operation with Nevada. (Don’t parse that previous sentence too closely; Nevada may still have a problem with i-gaming operators that turned off US players back in 2006 when the UIGEA was passed and that aren’t currently US-facing.) And since Alderney only regulates Internet gaming, the co-operation must be at least partly with a view to Nevada understanding and learning more about Internet gaming. Apparently Nevada doesn’t have a problem with recognizing the authority of Alderney to regulate Internet gaming; it only has a problem with the behaviour (sanctioned by Alderney) of some of their licensees. These kinds of agreements between gaming regulators aren’t particularly new. The Kahnwake Gaming Commission has struck agreements with Alderney and with Antigua that would appear to go much further than this accord between Alderney-Nevada. But it’s still interesting that Nevada is reaching out to engage with current online regulators - even online regulators that accept US-facing licensees.

What this means for Internet poker in the US is anyone’s guess, but it seems clear that Nevada is heading for regulation at some point. Nevada regulators were going to be at the forefront of the licensing structure contemplated by the Reid Bill draft that was floating around last month. The Nevada Gaming Commission was going to be one of the leading Qualified Bodies under the bill on a number of measures. It’s safe to say that Nevada will have a leading role if poker regulation happens at the federal level in the next couple of years; federal action may actually be more likely if more and more states start regulating intrastate gaming, including poker. At an intrastate level, Nevada’s signals have been mixed at best. This kind of agreement with Alderney, however, may indicate that Nevada could be thinking about going its own way absent federal interactive gaming oversight.

Internet poker regulation in the US may be one (very small) step closer.

Not to be dismissive of all the good work poker can do, but in Las Vegas, charity tourneys can begin to seem a dime a dozen.

Just about all charity tournaments promise “celebrities”, but few deliver. In the world of big-time charity events that consistently do, you’ve got Ante Up for Africa, the big $5k buy-in event at the WSOP, and, maybe Jennifer Harman’s event for the ASPCA. But one of the best opportunities to play with celebs for a decent price (and a great cause) is at the “All In for CP” 3 charity event, which takes place today at the Venetian at 4 pm PT.

The tournament raises money for the One Step Closer Foundation, an enterprise started by Jacob Zalewski when he was in college. Though the ultimate goal is to find a cure for cerebral palsy, the immediate goal is to allow people with CP to live more normal lives. Many of you who have spent time at the Rio during the last few World Series’ have certainly seen Jacob riding around the halls on his scooter.

This event does not lack in star power, as celebrities have taken down this event in the last two years. First it was actor Mehki Phifer, then last year Simpson’s co-creator Sam Simon won and generously donated the entirety of his winnings. This year’s event will also feature appearances by Shannon Elizabeth, Jennifer Tilly, Montel Williams and WWE Diva Alicia Fox, amongst others, as well as dozens of poker pros including Barry Greenstein, Phil Laak, Dennis Phillips, and Antonio Esfandiari.

As was previously stated this tournament is happening TODAY at 4 PM. Information about the event can be found on Facebook here and on the All In For CP website here. If you’re in the area you should definitely consider heading down and anteing up for this worthy cause.

Buzzerblog, which covers the game show industry, reported last week about a pilot for a poker game show where players can win up to $1,000,000. Shuffle Up and Deal, which states that it’s the first “family-friendly” poker-themed game show, will have five contestants attempt to create the best poker hand from an oversized electronic poker board. Whomever makes the most money will have an opportunity to win $1,000,000 at the end of each show. Interested participants should fire off an email to ontheshow@shuffleuptv.com for taping in November.

The more I read about this, the more I like it.

I stumbled across this courtesy of High Stakes News. A Canadian by the name of Bo Fric didn’t exactly make a success out of his run as a professional poker player. In fact, he accumulated quite the debt in the process. But before leaving the game altogether, he put together a “poker bucket list,” which he plans to put into motion this summer at the WSOP, write about it, and film it all for a documentary. The list includes things like riding in a hot-air balloon with Sam Grizzle and doing yoga with Allen Cunningham. However…

There are three little problems:

1. I don’t know any of these people on a personal level and really don’t know how to begin.
2. I currently have a slight negative balance in my bank account, $30,000 in credit card debt, and less than $3,000 liquid cash.
3. I don’t know the first damn thing about writing a book.

Other problems? He has a young son and has chosen to mortgage his house, car, and other worldly possessions to carry out this project. Nevertheless, since he began airing his wishes on his website, Bo seems to have found sponsors like PokerRoad and the Canadian Poker Tour, making it seem like this has a chance of playing out before our WSOP-blurred eyes this summer. Could be interesting!

Items on the bucket list include: More…