Harris Hagan October Newsletter 2009
Inside this issue:
- Software Licences
- New BCR Rules
- Sports Betting
- ASA warns Camelot
- Gambling Regulatory Update
DOWNLOAD NEWSLETTER
Inside this issue:
DOWNLOAD NEWSLETTER
Ladbrokes has won a case against the Danish Monopoly, Danska Spil, in the Maritime and Commercial Court in Copenhagen.
The verdict means that Ladbrokes can continue to use the words Danska spil in its advertising, and confirms that the Danish monopoly has no exclusive rights to the use of these words professionally.
The Danish company had filed a lawsuit against Ladbrokes claiming a breach of primary trademark and marketing law in connection with Ladbrokes’ “Danish game, English odds” TV advertising campaign last year. It claimed that Ladbrokes had improperly used the Danska Spil trademark – and that only Danska Spil can use the word combination “Dansk” and “spil” for commercial use in advertising and marketing. According to Ladbrokes, the Court refused Danska Spil’s request for compensation.
With ruling going in its favour, Ladbrokes said it will continue to highlight the disadvantages of monopolies in this sector and promote free and fair competition from regulated operators to the benefit of consumers.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has banned Betfair’s email advertising campaign, featuring a photograph of a young woman.
The text in the ad for an online poker site stated: “online experience is measured in games, not years. Join The New Breed. Annette Obrestad – “ANNETTE_15”.” The complainant objected that the ad was irresponsible, because it might encourage children and young people to gamble. The ASA challenged whether the ad breached the gambling provisions of the Code, because it was understood Annette Obrestad was 20 years of age.
Betfair clarified that the ad didn’t target their marketing at under 18-year-olds. The e-mail was distributed to people who had registered with Lucky Lotto. To register there, users had to give their date of birth, and Betfair’s arrangement with Lucky Lotto was that the e-mail would only be distributed to people who had confirmed they were over 18 years old. Also, Obrestad was featured in the ad not because of her age but because of her standing as a poker professional and champion who had had a profound effect on the game.
According to the ASA, the Code stated that marketing communications should not be likely to be of particular appeal to children or young persons, especially by reflecting or being associated with youth culture. Also, the text implied that Obrestad was even younger than she was (aged 20). Because of that, it concluded the ad was likely to have particular appeal to children and young people.
The ASA conveyed Betfair to ensure that no one who was, or seemed to be, under 25 years old appeared gambling or playing a significant role in their ads going forward.
A ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has gone in favour of Poshbingo for its television commercial.
A viewer objected that the ad was misleading, because it did not make clear that it was necessary for players to deposit and spend £20 before they could withdraw any money from their account.
Spacebar Media, responding on behalf of Poshbingo.com, clarified that the ad clearly stated that consumers must deposit and spend £10 to receive £20, for free, to spend on bingo games; the total amount to spend would therefore be £30.
The ASA noted that the ad did not state that players could withdraw money from their account having deposited and spent only £10 and stated “Join Poshbingo.com and get twenty pounds free play”.
“ We considered that made clear that players would receive £20 worth of game play only. Viewers were unlikely to be misled into believing that they could withdraw that £20,” stated the ASA.
It added that the requirement to deposit and spend £20 before withdrawing money was not relevant to the promotion but was a general condition applied to all first time withdrawals from Poshbingo.
“ We also noted the ad stated ” … Terms & conditions apply … “, which we considered was sufficient to alert viewers to the fact that restrictions applied. We considered viewers were unlikely to be misled into thinking that they could withdraw money having taken advantage of the free play on offer and concluded that the ad was not misleading,” stated the ASA.
Ladbrokes recently won a case against the Swedish state monopoly, Svenska Spel.
Svenska Spel filed a law suit against Ladbrokes last year for breach of trademark laws in connection with the Ladbrokes advertising campaign “Swedish games with English odds”. The Swedish company claimed that Ladbrokes had misused the Svenska Spel trademark and that only the state monopoly can use the term “Swedish” and “games” for commercial use in advertising and marketing. The Market Court in Sweden ruled that Ladbrokes did not violate the trademark act of Sweden.
Christopher Bell, chief executive of Ladbrokes, stated that this case means that Swedish monopolies cannot extend their power to monopolising language.
For its part, Ladbrokes countered with a law suit against Swedish game (Svenska Spel) for violation of the Marketing Act, for the use of terms such as “Svenska Spel is a world leader in responsible gaming” and “the most effective age verification online.” The Swedish Marketing Court ruled in favour of Ladbrokes and Svenska Spel faces a penalty of SEK 750,000 if these statements are used in future marketing activities.
The ruling, according to Ladbrokes, also noted that the company did not sufficiently manage to demonstrate that the use of statements such as “same game” and “major gains” in the Ladbrokes ad campaign 2008 was relevant to the facts, and therefore contrary to the Marketing Act.
Ladbrokes has been quite critical of Swedish state monopoly laws and actions that restrict competition and choice. Late last year, Ladbrokes had described a report issued by the Swedish National Gambling Consultation as protectionist and anti-competitive. It mentioned that none of the EU principles of proportionality or free and fair competition across border were taken into account in the paper – it is more monopoly, not less. The objective is to protect Government revenues and penalise competitors, it had stated.
