Two of the gaming industry’s largest suppliers of electronic games are squaring off in federal court over copyright and trademark infringement claims.
In Nevada District Court Monday, Bally Gaming accuses Las Vegas-based Aristocrat Technologies Inc. (ATI) of violating its patented curved screens and 360-degree gaming devices.
Bally also says ATI infringes upon its Easy Money marks via is sister company, Video Gaming Technologies (VGT). Australia-based Aristocrat Leisure owns ATI and VGT and is a co-defendant.
Bally says its Pro Wave-designed slots were the gaming industry’s first to feature cabinets with curved monitors, and “it brings a whole new look and feel to casino floors.”
Bally says it first revealed its Pro Wave design during the 2013 Global Gaming Expo, which “immediately received industry praise,” including being named Best Slot Product by Global Gaming Business magazine and earning other awards and accolades from Casino Journal and Casino Enterprise Management magazines.
Bally also says it introduced its Alpha Pro Wave 360 design during the 2014 Global Gaming Expo. That design created a 360-degree slot with multiple seats and curved monitors for two or more slots players, and it won Global Gaming Business magazine’s Best Slot Product, while Casino Journal named it among the top 20 most innovative gaming products for 2014.
On Oct. 4, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued U.S Patent Number RE46,169 for the Pro Wave curved monitor, and in 2014 issued U.S. Patent Numbers D714,875 for the Alpha Pro Wave 360, and U.S. Patent Number D715,364 for a curved, two-player slots machine.
Bally says ATI’s ARC Single, ARC Double and ARC Wheel gaming products violate those patents, including a new Sharknado slot that ATI displayed during the 2016 Global Gaming Expo.
Bally says the appearance and design of the patented Bally products and the “corresponding designs of the ATI infringing products” are similar.
“An ordinary observer will perceive the overall appearance of the designs of Bally Gaming patents and the corresponding designs of the ATI infringing products to be substantially the same,” Bally says.
That’s no accident, Bally says.
“ATI, as controlled and directed by Aristocrat Leisure, intended to copy, and did copy, the Bally Gaming patents as evidenced by at least the similarity between the ATI infringing products and Bally Gaming’s Pro Wave design and Pro Wave 360 design,” Bally says.
Bally also says ATI, via its VGT subsidiary, is infringing upon its Easy Money marks, which Bally says it has used to promote, sell and lease gaming machines at least since 1998. Since then, Bally says it continued using a variety of Easy Money marks, including Double Easy Money in 2003 and Super Easy Money in 2007.
During the 2015 G2E show, Bally says it unveiled a gaming machine using its Easy Money mark.
It also registered the Double Easy Money mark on Oct. 4, 2005, under U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,004,885 for use on “’currency and credit-operated slot machines and gaming devices” to be used in gaming establishments, Bally says.
Bally says it also obtained its Super Easy Money mark with U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,399,131 on March 18, 2008, for “use on or in connection with ‘gaming machines that generate or display wager outcomes; gaming software that generates or displays wager outcomes of gaming machines.’”
Through years of use and the trademark registrations, Bally says it owns “common law and/or federally registered rights for Easy Money, Double Easy Money and Super Easy Money marks for use on gaming machines.
Bally says it “has given VGT, as controlled and directed by Aristocrat Leisure, notice of its rights with the Bally Gaming trademarks,” yet, “nonetheless, without authorization or permission,” it continues using them in violation of intellectual property rights.
VGT’s infringing Easy Money Jackpot “wide-area progressive gaming machine platform” is a “‘three-wheel mechanical wide-area progressive and appears on top of eight player-favorite VGT game titles: 777 Bourbon Street, Crazy Cherry, Hot Red Ruby, King of Coin, Lucky Ducky, Mr. Money Bags, Reel Fever and Smooth as Silk,’” Bally says.
Bally also says VGT is using the infringing Easy Money Jackpot with other game titles and as a “standalone mark,” which it “displayed, promoted and offered” during the 2016 G2E show.
During the 2016 G2E show, Bally says VGT displayed gaming titles Star Spangled evens, Cash Barn, Crazy Bill’s Gold Strike and Gems 7 Jewels, with Easy Money Jackpot appearing on each, and with Easy Money being featured as the dominant element of Easy Money Jackpot to affect the “mark’s commercial expression.”
VGT on Feb. 5, 2015, filed a U.S. trademark application for the Easy Money Jackpot mark for use on “’gaming machines, slot machines, bingo machines, with or without video input’ and ‘computer software for use with gaming machines to enable the gaming machine to run.’”
But Bally says the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office refused the application due to a “likelihood of confusion” with Bally’s Easy Money marks, which are “’highly similar because they share the identical wording Easy Money.’”
The Patent and Trademark Office also said VGT’s Easy Money Jackpot “’does not create a distinct commercial impression because it contains the same common wording” Easy Money and its Jackpot element “’is less significant in terms of affecting the mark’s commercial impression” and makes Easy Money the “’more dominant element of the mark.’”
The Patent and Trademark office also said the Easy Money Jackpot mark would ‘”impart a confusingly similar commercial impression’” to Bally’s Easy Money marks, could lead consumers to mistakenly think VGT and Bally are related or that Bally produced the VGT machines and create confusion among consumers regarding the “’source of the goods,’” Bally says.
The Patent and Trademark office offered to let VGT amend its application to cure any defects, but Bally says VGT “did not substantively respond” to the federal government refusing its mark application and “did not attempts to argue against the finding of likelihood of confusion” with Bally’s marks, Bally says.
Instead, Bally says VGT filed additional trademark applications for Polar High Roller Easy Money Jackpot, Hot Red Ruby Easy Money Jackpot, Lucky Ducky Easy Money Jackpot and Mr. Money Bags Easy Money Jackpot for use on electronic gaming devices, but the Patent and Trademark office denied the applications due to likely confusion with Bally’s Double Easy Money and Super Easy Money marks.
Bally demands a jury trial and seeks a permanent injunction against further infringements by ATI, et al., plus actual damages, enhanced profits and legal costs for patent and trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition.
Named as defendants are ATI and its subsidiaries, Video Gaming Technologies and Aristocrat Leisure.
ATI did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment Friday morning.
Bally is represented by Las Vegas attorney J. Randall Jones of the Kemp, Jones & Coulthard law firm.
Bloomberg describes ATI as engaging in the “design, manufacture and marketing of gaming machines, progressive systems and casino-management systems, plus iPhone casino games, and the NRich bonus rewards system in Colorado. ATI primarily serves Class III gaming enterprises in North America, Latin America and the Caribbean, according to Bloomberg.
Las Vegas-based Bally Gaming was founded in 1968, is a subsidiary of Scientific Games and shares its roots with Bally Manufacturing, which was founded in 1938 in Chicago.
