Trademark Jackpocket Lawsuit Alleges Copying by Fledgling Competitor

In a recent lawsuit, lottery messaging service Jackpocket said it wasn’t afraid of a little competition and just wanted people to know that its competition is its competition. A new Jackpocket Brand lawsuit alleges that a nascent competitor, Jackpotattempts to build its brand through the hard work of American online gambling service Jackpocket.

The litigation follows Jackpot’s funding announcement preceding the company’s US launch. If successful, Jackpot will have to go back to the drawing board and possibly delay this launch.

The Jackpocket Trademark Lawsuit Allegations

Stick with the action here as it can get a bit confusing. In late June, Jackpot shared details of a $35 million Series A funding round with the public. However, there was a conflict between Jackpot and jack pocket which dates back to weeks before. It all turned into a federal trial.

Jackpocket deposited his complaint in federal district court for Southern District of New York July 7. Jackpocket alleges that,

“Jackpot sought to revive its business in the United States by disguising itself as Jackpocket.”

Accordingly, Jackpocket asks “the Court to restrain Jackpot from using JACKPOT and JACKPOT.COM and from choosing a non-infringing name and mark for its business.” Plaintiff seeks the stated injunctive relief plus “all profits arising from Jackpot’s illegal acts”.

Additionally, Jackpocket is seeking “punitive damages” plus other damages of at least $75,000 and, as is standard, attorneys’ fees. To reinforce its arguments, Jackpocket brings the recipes right into its brief.

Jackpocket’s Evidence to Support His Claims

As evidence of Jackpocket’s alleged brand confusion, he points to the fact that he used the term “jackpot” in his branding. An attachment to the complaint shows how the landing page of Jackpocket’s mobile app displays the word “Jackpot”, which then changes to “Jackpocket” in an animated presentation.

Additionally, Jackpocket features several instances in which members of the press referred to Jackpocket as “Jackpot”. Additionally, the exhibits show how Jackpot uses a similar blue and white color scheme for its brand, albeit with a darker share of blue.

Jackpocket argues that,

“If it is not ordered, [Jackpot’s current brand marks] are likely to cause continued and increased confusion [and] … likely to dilute the distinctive quality of the Jackpocket’s Marks.

In a move that no doubt seeks to paint a Jackpot narrative that usually circumvents the law, Jackpocket has alleged that Jackpot’s parent company, 99Dynamics Limited“continued to operate spin-off lotteries… which are illegal and frowned upon in the United States…”

(A derivative lottery is a betting system that allows people to place bets on lotteries that they normally do not have access to, i.e. a person in the United States betting on a draw for a game of lottery in Europe).

Possible effects of this litigation on the lottery mark

Jackpocket says he sent Jackpot a formal notice on May 23 explaining his position. Jackpocket confirmed on Wednesday that he had received a response to this letter from Jackpot in which he “simply denied the allegations”. An out-of-court settlement is always a possibility, although perhaps unlikely in the short term.

As of the morning of July 13, Jackpot had not filed a response with the Court. In addition, the Court had not yet scheduled hearings in the case. If the complaint goes to trial and Jackpocket wins a clear win, it could have a significant effect on Jackpot.

The jackpot should completely rename and convince the Court that its rebranding deviated from Jackpocket’s trademarks. This could delay his launch and result in costs far greater than the damages he would have to pay Jackpocket in restitution.

This cost, in addition to damages and legal fees, could eat up a large chunk of recent Jackpot winnings. $35 million raised. Barring a settlement, a federal court will now determine the future of Jackpot.

Comments are closed.