https://www.americascardroom.eu/onli...lifiers-event/

Is ACR allowed to promote WSOP packages on their site without express permission?

Some are saying completely legal, others like Mike O'Malley say its not.

WSOP posted their own twitter response as well.

I know venues are prohibited from using the term "superbowl" to advertise viewing parties or drawings.

Not sure if this falls under that category or not.

Yes, until it goes "viral".

Using 'WSOP' would infringe on their brand copyright, although not illegal in the sense that the police are not going to be knocking on anyone's door over it.

Using the expression 'Las Vegas Main Event' Package would be a more sensible option for the promotion.

Um, isn't ACR operating illegally in the USA already? Highly doubt they care about this.

As long as they're clear they're not affiliated with them (which I assume they're not) then I can't see a reason why they couldn't do this

You can tell that they are being somewhat careful. Notice no mention of the Rio, no WSOP branding, just use of the term "WSOP." Are they violating a trademark simply by using the term "WSOP" in the way that they are? Maybe, that's not really my area of law though.

If it is a registered trademark then the answer is maybe.

Formula 1 has registered trademarks and words, such as F1, Grand Prix etc., but nothing stops you from using those words with other products providing it is not within auto racing. So F1 Weedkiller would be acceptable (assuming the brand's logo was not similar to Formula 1's logo).

Obviously, both companies involved here promote poker, so there is a potential conflict. Clearly, they are two very different products and ACRs use of WSOP is not another poker event but the actual World Series of Poker.

As it would be a civil matter, the key question is probably what harm, damage or financial loss does it cause the WSOP? That is open to interpretation, but you could argue that 50 players winning WSOP packages financially benefits the WSOP. The attention that this promotion has gotten probably benefits both parties.

I don't have a horse in this race, but if I were poker tour operator and someone wanted to bring me 50 players then I would welcome them with open arms.

WSOP will argue that ACR is promoting their business by using the WSOP brand without paying a licensing fee, ACR would probably argue they are advertising the WSOP (at no cost) and giving them players.

The WSOP’s argument looks a lot stronger. It’s trademark infringement vs. “But c’mon, we’re helping you!”

Searching the USPTO's trademark database reveals that Caesars owns the registered trademark "WSOP." Looks like a real plausible case of trademark infringement.

Good luck enforcing that judgment in whatever country ACR calls home.

Ultimate Poker did it when they first started operations in Nevada and Caesars and WSOP sent them a cease and desist order which was quickly complied with. I would imagine Caesars will act on ACR's use of their name to protect their brand

Wasn't there a time back in the day when poker stars, full tilt, etc., stopped promoting WSOP and giving out packages because of a threat of a lawsuit from Caesars (or whomever owned it at the time)? I might be totally making this up, but I feel like I remember this happening.

ACR doesn't award packages to WSOP per se; instead, it awards $12500 in cash into the poker account that can be withdrawn without attending WSOP I think that's exactly because ACR has no contract with Caesars.

WPN heavily used James Franco's image from the Pineapple Express movie poster to promote their 4/20 event one year.

I don't think WPN gives a crap.

That is not correct at all. Even when sites were able to buy-in players directly into WSOP, there were no "contracts" required to do so.

The reason all sites deposit the cash into your account is because the Nevada Gaming Commission, or other relevant agency, prohibited 3rd-party buyins to WSOP, for whatever stupid reason.

The WSOP was well on it's way to having 10,000+ people in the Main Event through Stars, Tilt, Party, etc. when the sites could buy-in the winning satellite players directly. When doing so was outlawed, only about 50% of winning satellite players actually registered for the Main, whereas it was near 100% prior because it was a use it or lose it proposition.

Sounds like WSOP peeps are messing up if they are against poker sites feeding their crappy tourneys.

heres what caesars can do...

drop the stars partnership and get online poker passed in california. we will then never play on that site and every state will see how amazing online poker is for their states and ACR will be a thing of the past

888poker does require those who won packages in its satellites to play the event I'm not surprised if it's the only online poker operator that's allowed to buy players in directly: 888 Holdings is the official sponsor of WSOP, and also, Caesars uses 888's software for its online poker rooms in NV and NJ.

Doesn't something like this happen every year? Card rooms all over the country run WSOP satellites but only a few are actually partnered with the WSOP. So the WSOP tweets out a statement warning people to be careful since they can't guarantee those winners will get their seats.

You need to defend your trademark or else there’s a risk of losing it. And it takes away their ability to seek licensing/endorsement deals if it turns out companies don’t actually need them.

Good point. Even if its just “beware” tweets, it preserves the validity of the trademark.

Taking it to civil court would be an additional action that may not be required or desired.

When all you are doing is offering up something as a contest, tournament, or raffle prize, I wonder if that really infringes on any trademark law, etc.

How would it be any different from the thousands of contests, raffles, tournaments (not just poker), that offer up a car as first prize, say a Lincoln Navigator. Or how about a vacation trip to a well-known resort, say something like Four Seasons Maui. Both are brands just like WSOP.

The fact that WSOP reportedly sends a tweet advising that it has no control over other entities offering up a WSOP seat or package indicates to me that there really isn't anything WSOP can do to stop others from having a contest with a prize of a WSOP seat.

This is what I'm thinking as well.

I'm not a lawyer, but Chainsaw's post did get me to poke around for the subject of third-party brands and the legalities that go with them. Quite a range of information, as one would guess. Here are just a few links:

From a "fair use" POV: https://www.inta.org/TrademarkBasics...demarksNL.aspx
In re online use: https://www.americanbar.org/publicat..._friedman.html
The "Super Bowl" case: https://www.broadcastlawblog.com/201...-law-try-both/

Plus a couple of other columns from World Trademark Review:
http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/...-infringing-it

http://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/...out-permission

EDIT: and there is also the WSOP Trademark Usage Guidelines page:
http://www.wsop.com/about-us/logos-guidelines/ (scroll to the bottom and read especially No. 4)

Just like in poker, the short answer seems to be "it depends." It comes down to how it's used, how accurately (or positively) the brand is depicted, whether or not a partnership is implied, if the usage is for comparative purposes, and – as the Super Bowl article demonstrates – the nature of the trademarks. (Note: my understanding is the Olympics are similarly strict with its name and rings logo.)

Anyway, hope that helps.

Wow, if only someone on 2+2 was also a patent attorney, maybe someone who still posts here and happens to like fossils... perhaps he would know a bit more than a bunch of us guessing.

There are thousands of promotions for “the big game” every year. Wonder why?

Having a car in your physical possession to raffle it off to someone else is a completely different situation. ACR is not in possession of WSOP seats and even if they were, they wouldn’t be allowed to give them away. The WSOP T&C are pretty specific about that. The situation is even addressed in the WSOP FAQ: https://www.wsop.com/2018/FAQ'S%202018%20WSOP.pdf

And lol @ “fair use”. A company that has a business model of breaking the law tries to attach itself to the biggest brand of legal (live) poker in the world.

it's worth noting that the ACR page included the following text:

However, this graphic appears to violate one of the guidelines:



So again, my non-lawyer opinion is that ACR largely played by all of the rules put out to them by the WSOP itself, and maybe needs to fix that header.

Not anymore:


Correct, and good point. In fact, to ACR's credit, they are pretty explicit that they are only awarding the amount of money for making such a trip.

This entire thread goes back to Chainsaw's original question:


And this entire discussion ultimately hinges on another question: do we know that they didn't?