by Martin Arendts
Section 21 par. 3 of the Interstate Treaty commands that the operation and intermediation of sports bets are strictly separated (“Trennungsgebot”). No “organisational, legal, economic or staff connection” is allowed.
Several of the 16 state operators (one for each German state) do not fulfill this requirement. At least four operators are partly owned by sports associations. The most blatant example is Lotto Rheinland-Pfalz, the operator for the State of Rhineland Palatinate. This operator is partly (49 %) owned by three sports associations. The biggest member of one of these associations, Sportbund Pfalz, is 1. FC Kaiserlautern. This football club is playing in the Bundesliga (at the moment, in the second league). Bets are offered on matches with 1. FC Kaiserlautern.
The proposed new sports betting operator of the state operators, ODS Oddset Deutschland Sportwetten GmbH, is partly owned by Lotto Rheinland-Pfalz. So, from my point of view, ODS GmbH does not fulfill the requirement of separation and should have been excluded from the licensing procedure for this reason.
24 June 2013
Licensing procedure in Germany: Transparency criteria of the CJEU not met
by Martin Arendts
In its decision of 30 April 2013, file no. 5 L 90/13.WI, the Administrative Court of Wiesbaden granted one applicant (BetVictor) to the up to 20 sports betting licenses to be issued under the regime of the new Interstate Treaty on Gambling 2012 interim protection. The court mentioned that the whole procedure was not transparent. If the Hessian Administrative Court of Appeal (Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof) follows this line of argument, it even might be possible that the whole licensing procedure would have to start again. The CJEU expressly stated that interested operators must have a fair chance to evaluate their chances at the beginning of the procedure. The Administrative Court held that there was no such possibility in the current procedure: “... the requirements with regard to a transparent procedure are not fulfilled (…)” (page 6 of the decision)
In its decision of 30 April 2013, file no. 5 L 90/13.WI, the Administrative Court of Wiesbaden granted one applicant (BetVictor) to the up to 20 sports betting licenses to be issued under the regime of the new Interstate Treaty on Gambling 2012 interim protection. The court mentioned that the whole procedure was not transparent. If the Hessian Administrative Court of Appeal (Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof) follows this line of argument, it even might be possible that the whole licensing procedure would have to start again. The CJEU expressly stated that interested operators must have a fair chance to evaluate their chances at the beginning of the procedure. The Administrative Court held that there was no such possibility in the current procedure: “... the requirements with regard to a transparent procedure are not fulfilled (…)” (page 6 of the decision)
05 June 2013
Germany: Cancellation of the trademark 'TOTO'
Originally published by World Online Gambling Law Report
http://www.e-comlaw.com/world-online-gambling-law-report/hottopic.asp?id=1366
_________________________________________________________________
In the decision of 23 March 2013, the Federal Patent Court in Munich ordered the cancellation of the trademark 'TOTO'1. This trademark along with the gambling related trademark 'LOTTO'2, was held by the member companies of Deutscher Lotto- und Totoblock (a cartel of the German state gambling operators). As a result of this decision, the state operators forfeit the protection of this trademark. Martin Arendts, Attorney-at-Law at Arendts Anwalte, discusses the decision.
In the 1990s, Deutscher Lotto- und Totoblock filed trademark applications for descriptive terms related to sports betting and gambling (e.g. 'TOTO', 'LOTTO' and 'ODDSET'3) and - as a monopoly operator (with no competitors) - was granted trademark protection. The state operators were not required to prove that these descriptive terms had acquired a secondary meaning as a trademark within the affected trade circles ('Verkehrsduchsetzung'). Several state operators used these trademarks to foreclose the German market to operators from other EU Member States, for example WestLotto4 argued that the term 'supertoto' infringed the trademark 'TOTO' and claimed damages from several bookmakers, offering their services online over a website in German.
In January 2005, the law firm ARENDTS ANWÄLTE, on behalf of a Maltese gambling operator, applied for a cancellation of the trademark 'TOTO' (filed with the trademark office by Deutscher Lotto- und Totoblock in 1996 and registered in 1997). In the infringement lawsuit, WestLotto had argued that 'TOTO' (a commonly used abbreviation of totaliser) was not descriptive, but an imaginary term, alluding to the German word 'Tor' (goal). In the trademark cancellation procedure, Deutscher Lotto- und Totoblock alleged that 'TOTO' had acquired a secondary meaning and had been extensively marketed since the 1950s. In 2009, on request of the German Patent and Trademark Office, the trademark owners presented a survey of an opinion research institute. According to this survey, 'TOTO' had acquired a secondary meaning with regard to the whole population 25.8% and with regard to persons not fundamentally disapproving of sports betting 29.7% (well below the 50%, usually required for descriptive terms as a minimum).
Nevertheless, the German Patent and Trademark Office declined to cancel the trademark5. It argued that although 'TOTO' was merely descriptive, it had to been proven that at the date of registration (August 1997) 'TOTO' had not acquired a secondary meaning. As the survey was conducted eleven years after the registration, this was not to be regarded as clear evidence. In the meantime, ODDSET had displaced TOTO as the common form of betting, according to the trademark office.
The Federal Patent Court overturned this decision. It pointed to the fact that 'TOTO' was an abbreviation of football toto and was merely describing a specific form of bet. Neither at the date of registration nor at the date of the court decision, had 'TOTO' acquired a secondary meaning. Such a secondary meaning could not be inferred from the fact that the trademark owners were monopoly operators for decades. As 'TOTO' was purely descriptive, a secondary meaning would have to be existent not only for a minimum of 50% of the affected trade circles, but more than 50%. Here, the affected circles were persons not fundamentally disapproving of sports betting. The negative result of the survey could not be offset by the millions spent on marketing by Deutscher Lotto- und Totoblock and the duration of its use.
In trademark cancellation procedures, the applicant has to bear the objective burden of proof. This means, if the question of whether a term has acquired a secondary meaning cannot be resolved, the trademark will not be cancelled. However, the cancellation of a trademark does not require doubtlessness, as the Federal Patent Court points out. Here, an overall appraisal of the survey and of all facts presented by the parties convinced the court that 'TOTO' had not acquired a secondary meaning at the date of filing and at the date of registration. The fact that 'TOTO' had acquired a secondary meaning with regard to less than 30% of the affected circles in 2009 infers that it had not acquired a distinctive character before. In addition to this between 1996 and 2009 there was not such a dramatic change of market conditions, that this could be seriously considered.
Martin Arendts M.B.L.-HSG Attorney-at-Law
ARENDTS ANWÄLTE
gaminglaw@anlageanwalt.de
http://www.e-comlaw.com/world-online-gambling-law-report/hottopic.asp?id=1366
_________________________________________________________________
In the decision of 23 March 2013, the Federal Patent Court in Munich ordered the cancellation of the trademark 'TOTO'1. This trademark along with the gambling related trademark 'LOTTO'2, was held by the member companies of Deutscher Lotto- und Totoblock (a cartel of the German state gambling operators). As a result of this decision, the state operators forfeit the protection of this trademark. Martin Arendts, Attorney-at-Law at Arendts Anwalte, discusses the decision.
In the 1990s, Deutscher Lotto- und Totoblock filed trademark applications for descriptive terms related to sports betting and gambling (e.g. 'TOTO', 'LOTTO' and 'ODDSET'3) and - as a monopoly operator (with no competitors) - was granted trademark protection. The state operators were not required to prove that these descriptive terms had acquired a secondary meaning as a trademark within the affected trade circles ('Verkehrsduchsetzung'). Several state operators used these trademarks to foreclose the German market to operators from other EU Member States, for example WestLotto4 argued that the term 'supertoto' infringed the trademark 'TOTO' and claimed damages from several bookmakers, offering their services online over a website in German.
In January 2005, the law firm ARENDTS ANWÄLTE, on behalf of a Maltese gambling operator, applied for a cancellation of the trademark 'TOTO' (filed with the trademark office by Deutscher Lotto- und Totoblock in 1996 and registered in 1997). In the infringement lawsuit, WestLotto had argued that 'TOTO' (a commonly used abbreviation of totaliser) was not descriptive, but an imaginary term, alluding to the German word 'Tor' (goal). In the trademark cancellation procedure, Deutscher Lotto- und Totoblock alleged that 'TOTO' had acquired a secondary meaning and had been extensively marketed since the 1950s. In 2009, on request of the German Patent and Trademark Office, the trademark owners presented a survey of an opinion research institute. According to this survey, 'TOTO' had acquired a secondary meaning with regard to the whole population 25.8% and with regard to persons not fundamentally disapproving of sports betting 29.7% (well below the 50%, usually required for descriptive terms as a minimum).
Nevertheless, the German Patent and Trademark Office declined to cancel the trademark5. It argued that although 'TOTO' was merely descriptive, it had to been proven that at the date of registration (August 1997) 'TOTO' had not acquired a secondary meaning. As the survey was conducted eleven years after the registration, this was not to be regarded as clear evidence. In the meantime, ODDSET had displaced TOTO as the common form of betting, according to the trademark office.
The Federal Patent Court overturned this decision. It pointed to the fact that 'TOTO' was an abbreviation of football toto and was merely describing a specific form of bet. Neither at the date of registration nor at the date of the court decision, had 'TOTO' acquired a secondary meaning. Such a secondary meaning could not be inferred from the fact that the trademark owners were monopoly operators for decades. As 'TOTO' was purely descriptive, a secondary meaning would have to be existent not only for a minimum of 50% of the affected trade circles, but more than 50%. Here, the affected circles were persons not fundamentally disapproving of sports betting. The negative result of the survey could not be offset by the millions spent on marketing by Deutscher Lotto- und Totoblock and the duration of its use.
In trademark cancellation procedures, the applicant has to bear the objective burden of proof. This means, if the question of whether a term has acquired a secondary meaning cannot be resolved, the trademark will not be cancelled. However, the cancellation of a trademark does not require doubtlessness, as the Federal Patent Court points out. Here, an overall appraisal of the survey and of all facts presented by the parties convinced the court that 'TOTO' had not acquired a secondary meaning at the date of filing and at the date of registration. The fact that 'TOTO' had acquired a secondary meaning with regard to less than 30% of the affected circles in 2009 infers that it had not acquired a distinctive character before. In addition to this between 1996 and 2009 there was not such a dramatic change of market conditions, that this could be seriously considered.
Martin Arendts M.B.L.-HSG Attorney-at-Law
ARENDTS ANWÄLTE
gaminglaw@anlageanwalt.de
1. Bundespatentgericht, decision of 23 March 2013, file no. 33 W (pat) 35/10. 'TOTO' was registered by the German Patent and Trademark Office as trademark 396 38 297.
2. Cancelled in 2006 by the Federal Court of Justice: Bundesgerichtshof, decision of 19 January 2006, file no. I ZB 11/04.
3. The Federal Patent Court declined to cancel this trademark, arguing that an absolute ground for refusal was not proven for the date of the registration. Bundespatentgericht, decision of 10 February 2009, file no. 27 W (pat) 131/08.
4. Westdeutsche Lotterie GmbH & Co. OHG, the state-owned operator of North-Rhine Westphalia.
5. Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt, decision of 2 February 2010, file no. 396 38 297.5/28 - S 11/05 Lösch.
07 December 2012
Online gaming and betting: Commission raises serious doubts about the compliance of German gambling regime with EU law
Brussels, 7 December 2012: EU online gambling
operators welcome the European Commission’s ‘detailed opinion’ against the
Draft Act amending acts pertaining to gambling law of the land of
Schleswig-Holstein (Gaming Amendment Act S-H) which is seeking to replace its
existing legislation with the controversial German State Treaty on gambling
(GST). The detailed opinion confirms that there are real concerns with
Schleswig-Holstein’s proposed switch from a transparent licensing model to one
that is restrictive and opaque, raising further doubts about the overall
compliance and consistency of the German gambling regime with EU law. Under
Directive 98/34/EC, Schleswig-Holstein must not adopt its draft legislation
before January 2013.
Schleswig-Holstein notified its proposed legislation to the
Commission on 6 September 2012 (see link).
Today’s detailed opinion (see link),
which has also received the support (see link)
of Malta (detailed opinion) and the U.K (comments), extends the standstill
period until 7 January 2013.
The proposed alignment of Schleswig-Holstein’s gambling legislation
with the GST marks an abrupt policy reversal. If confirmed, Schleswig-Holstein
would move from a sustainable and EU-compliant licensing model introduced in
2011 (see link)
to a prohibitive and restrictive model which bans online poker and casino,
imposes an uncompetitive tax regime, and restricts the online sports betting
offering to 20 licenses.
Sigrid Ligné, Secretary General of the EGBA, commented: “Schleswig-Holstein’s proposed move
from a sustainable and EU compliant licensing system to an inconsistent and
unjustifiably restrictive regime would be a significant step backwards, one
that - as confirmed today - the European Commission cannot approve”.
The European Commission already confirmed its concerns about the
non-compliance of the German gambling legislation with EU law in July 2011 (see
link). Today’s detailed opinion shows the consistent position of the
Commission towards Germany’s gambling reform.
The tendering procedure for the allocation of the 20 online
betting concessions under the GST is currently managed by the state of Hessen
and has already resulted in more than 100 applications but fails to provide the
applicants with clear, transparent and reliable information on the criteria
which will be used for allocating the 20 concessions.
Sigrid Ligné added “The
European Commission’s detailed opinion against Schleswig-Holstein sends a clear
message that Member States are no longer going to be allowed to impose gaming
regulations that fail to meet the tests set by the CJEU. The German states
cannot continue to ignore the warnings coming from Brussels and the growing
criticism evidenced by the multiplication of complaints and litigation even
before the new legislation is introduced. This creates an extreme level of
legal uncertainty which is a damaging for all parties and German consumers in
particular. At this stage, only the EC can restore legal security by acting on
the many complaints it has received, not only against Germany, but also against
Greece, Belgium and several other Member States.”
The European Commission confirmed on 23 October 2012 in its
Communication on online gambling that “ensuring
compliance of national law with the Treaty is […] a prerequisite of a
successful EU policy on online gambling”1 and that it
would take action against all Member States whose legislation does not comply
with EU law.
For
further information or comment please contact:
Sigrid Ligné: +32 2 554 08 90
sigrid.ligne@egba.eu
Sigrid Ligné: +32 2 554 08 90
sigrid.ligne@egba.eu
23 November 2012
Licensing procedure in Germany: A never-ending story
By Attorney-at-law Martin Arendts, M.B.L.-HSG
Under the new Interstate Treaty on Gambling 2012, 20 sports betting licenses will be awarded. When this might eventually happen, remains still open. The deadline for the first step has been prolonged once. The deadline for the second step has now been prolonged for the second time (and the end is not near). Applicants which survived the first step are now required to send in their concepts and other documents until 21 January 2013. If more than 20 applicants fulfill the (confidential) minimum requirements, the 20 best will be chosen by the Hessian Ministry of the Interior and for Sports. The information memorandum (which explains the procedure) and the selection criteria (a maximum of 5000 points can be awarded) have not been published yet (as required under EU law). So, the whole procedure might be declared null and void.
Under the new Interstate Treaty on Gambling 2012, 20 sports betting licenses will be awarded. When this might eventually happen, remains still open. The deadline for the first step has been prolonged once. The deadline for the second step has now been prolonged for the second time (and the end is not near). Applicants which survived the first step are now required to send in their concepts and other documents until 21 January 2013. If more than 20 applicants fulfill the (confidential) minimum requirements, the 20 best will be chosen by the Hessian Ministry of the Interior and for Sports. The information memorandum (which explains the procedure) and the selection criteria (a maximum of 5000 points can be awarded) have not been published yet (as required under EU law). So, the whole procedure might be declared null and void.
23 October 2012
EGBA: EUROPEAN COMMISSION’S NEW POLICY PAPER ON ONLINE GAMBLING
EU operators call for ‘hard’ action from the Commission to curb market fragmentation and protect consumers - EU operators lodge formal complaint with the Commission against the new German gambling régime.
The EGBA today outlined its expectations for the European Commission’s Communication and Action Plan on online gambling, currently scheduled for mid to late October. This initiative, which flows from the Commission’s commitments to the European Parliament last November, will be a key test:
- Will the current fragmentation of the EU online gambling market continue?
- Will consumers therefore continue to suffer different levels of protection throughout the EU?
- Will some consumers, and in particular children and the vulnerable, continue to suffer no protection at all, where a Member State closes the door to EU-regulated operators, thus encouraging consumers to look for non-regulated websites?
As Commissioner Barnier has said: “[It is] important for legal operators to be able to offer sufficiently attractive products for them to be a credible alternative to the illicit sites”
Sigrid Ligné, Secretary General of EGBA said: “We deplore the situation today where we see 27 ‘mini-markets’ for gambling in Europe. We are calling for the introduction of European rules to ensure proper protection for consumers and maintain a crime-free environment throughout the EU, while affording open, fair and transparent licensing conditions for EU-regulated operators.”
The EGBA also today announced that, together with other industry partners, it is lodging a formal complaint with the Commission against the new German gambling regime on grounds of incompatibility with the EU treaty.
Sigrid Ligné added: "Together with other industry partners, EGBA this week lodges an official complaint with the Commission against the revised German gambling law. We urge the European Commission to handle our complaint urgently as Germany is in the process of allocating licenses on the basis of a highly contentious tendering procedure which appears, on the basis of a cumulation of evidence, not to be designed to pursue the declared purpose of conducting an open, fair and transparent Europe-wide call for bids."
Infringements:
In his June 2012 speech to the European Parliament Commissioner Barnier made a clear commitment that the Commission will assume its responsibility and ensure that national regimes are in conformity with the Treaty. Unfortunately, the situation is worsening in a number of jurisdictions. Several Member States have decided to move forward with legislation that is - at best - highly questionable under EU law. Some have even gone a step further. If the Commission fails to provide a timetable for reactivating these dormant procedures, and to take rapid action against new offenders, certain Member States will continue to consider that they have “carte blanche” to do as they please. They will also be exposing consumers to potentially unsafe operators.
Sigrid Ligné said: “Action from the Commission on European gambling markets is more justified and urgent than ever. The normal course of EU justice – infringement procedures – can no longer be put on hold. There are 9 infringement procedures suspended for the moment, and many more new complaints lodged with the Commission."
EU legislative framework:
What is ultimately needed is overarching EU legislation for online gambling, as there is for virtually all other online services. The objective is to have EU wide sector specific legislation that regulates both market access and consumer protection issues. But a first practical step should be made by the Commission in its action plan next week by announcing it will take the initiative by developing;
- Common consumer protection standards, ideally based on the existing workshop agreement published in 2011 by the CEN (European Committee for Standardization).
- Common technical standards and reporting tools
- Common licensing requirements
Sigrid Ligné added: “The Commission wants the online single market to work as effectively as the offline market in promoting economic growth. Can the Commission therefore afford to sit back and ignore an online industry which is set to grow from €8.5 billion in 2010 to €13 billion in 2015?”
14 September 2012
Bavarian Administrative Court of Appeal: Internet ban not coherent and disproportionate
By Martin Arendts, M.B.L.-HSG
The Bavarian Administrative Court of Appeal (Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof), in its recently published decision of 26 June 2012, file no. 10 BV 09.2259, held that the Internet ban with regard to gambling advertising was not enforceable. Section 5 par. 3 of the German Interstate Treaty on Gambling states that advertising public gambling over the Internet is prohibited.
The court rescinded a prohibition order against an Internet portal (offering sport news), which advertised a private bookmaker. It argued that there was a serious “structural enforcement deficit”. All state operators were continuously and systematically breaking the law, advertising their services over the Internet. The Internet ban was not adequate and not coherent and, therefore, not enforceable. Apart from that, the Internet ban was also not proportionate, as the authorities were issuing prohibition orders only with regard to private operators. As the ban was not enforced against state operators, the regulation was obviously not taken seriously (and, in truth, fiscal reasons were decisive).
From my point of view, it is a very important decision, as it points to the fact that the treatment of state operators and private operators is clearly discriminatory and disproportionate. According to the court, the state operators (in Bavaria, it is the state itself who operates casinos, lotteries, scratch cards and sports betting) were systematically breaking the law (without any enforcement by the authorities). Last year, the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), ignored this fact and upheld the Internet ban in several unfair competition cases. The Bavarian Administrative Court of Appeal now comes to the conclusion that the whole regulatory system is not working properly. So, I do not follow the state attorney (Landesanwaltschaft) who argued that the decision was only relevant with regard to the situation before 1 July 2012 (when the Amendment Treaty to the Interstate Treaty became effective).
The Bavarian Administrative Court of Appeal (Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof), in its recently published decision of 26 June 2012, file no. 10 BV 09.2259, held that the Internet ban with regard to gambling advertising was not enforceable. Section 5 par. 3 of the German Interstate Treaty on Gambling states that advertising public gambling over the Internet is prohibited.
The court rescinded a prohibition order against an Internet portal (offering sport news), which advertised a private bookmaker. It argued that there was a serious “structural enforcement deficit”. All state operators were continuously and systematically breaking the law, advertising their services over the Internet. The Internet ban was not adequate and not coherent and, therefore, not enforceable. Apart from that, the Internet ban was also not proportionate, as the authorities were issuing prohibition orders only with regard to private operators. As the ban was not enforced against state operators, the regulation was obviously not taken seriously (and, in truth, fiscal reasons were decisive).
From my point of view, it is a very important decision, as it points to the fact that the treatment of state operators and private operators is clearly discriminatory and disproportionate. According to the court, the state operators (in Bavaria, it is the state itself who operates casinos, lotteries, scratch cards and sports betting) were systematically breaking the law (without any enforcement by the authorities). Last year, the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), ignored this fact and upheld the Internet ban in several unfair competition cases. The Bavarian Administrative Court of Appeal now comes to the conclusion that the whole regulatory system is not working properly. So, I do not follow the state attorney (Landesanwaltschaft) who argued that the decision was only relevant with regard to the situation before 1 July 2012 (when the Amendment Treaty to the Interstate Treaty became effective).
31 August 2012
25 July 2012
INTRALOT ENTERS THE GERMAN SPORTS BETTING MARKET
press release of 16 July 2012
THE GERMAN STATE LOTTERIES SELECT SGI & INTRALOT FOR RETAIL AND ONLINE SPORTS BETTING
Following a competitive process, ‘ODS ODDSET Deutschland Sportwetten GmbH’ (ODDSET) has awarded Scientific Games International (SGI) in cooperation with INTRALOT with a contract for the operation of sports betting in Germany both in the retail and the interactive space. Under the agreement with SGI, INTRALOT will provide the new generation of its renowned INTRALOT Betting Platform, fully supporting the retail and the interactive operational modes, together with complete Risk Management Services and Interactive Operational Services. ODDSET is the newly established entity that will modernize and develop the existing sports betting operations in Germany, through the national retail network of the Deutsche Lotto und Toto Block lotteries, which is comprised of 23,000 points of sale.
Germany’s betting market is among Europe’s largest and is currently undergoing regulatory reforms. As many as 15 of the country’s 16 regions signed the Interstate Treaty at the end of 2011 and most of these regions have already ratified it in their local parliaments. The new Treaty is in force since beginning of July 2012. Aiming to become the leader of Germany’s betting market, ODDSET will apply for one of the twenty upcoming national concessions to be issued for the organization and brokerage of sports betting for an initial period of seven (7) years.
Mr. Constantinos Antonopoulos, INTRALOT Group CEO, stated: “We are very pleased to become part of this great opening of the German market, one of the most important markets in Europe and worldwide. SGI’s considerable experience and knowledge of the local market together with INTRALOT’s extensive know-how of sports betting operations and the powerful market position of the German State Lotteries create the synergy to address the challenges of the newly regulated German market. Our common objective is to establish through ODDSET a modern, attractive and competitive product portfolio in the German market enabling ODDSET to become the market leader in sports betting in the Federal Republic of Germany over the medium term.”
The Parties have the common objective of supporting ODDSET to launch first in Germany’s regulated sports betting market, which is estimated to take place before the end of 2012.
About INTRALOT
INTRALOT, a public listed company, is the leading supplier of integrated gaming and transaction processing systems, innovative game content, sports betting management and interactive gaming services to state-licensed gaming organizations worldwide. Its broad portfolio of products & services, its know-how of Lottery, Betting, Racing & Video Lottery operations and its leading-edge technology, give INTRALOT a competitive advantage which contributes directly to customers’ efficiency, profitability and growth. With presence in more than 53 countries, with approximately 5.500 people and revenues of €1.2 billion for 2011, INTRALOT has established its presence on all 5 continents.
THE GERMAN STATE LOTTERIES SELECT SGI & INTRALOT FOR RETAIL AND ONLINE SPORTS BETTING
Following a competitive process, ‘ODS ODDSET Deutschland Sportwetten GmbH’ (ODDSET) has awarded Scientific Games International (SGI) in cooperation with INTRALOT with a contract for the operation of sports betting in Germany both in the retail and the interactive space. Under the agreement with SGI, INTRALOT will provide the new generation of its renowned INTRALOT Betting Platform, fully supporting the retail and the interactive operational modes, together with complete Risk Management Services and Interactive Operational Services. ODDSET is the newly established entity that will modernize and develop the existing sports betting operations in Germany, through the national retail network of the Deutsche Lotto und Toto Block lotteries, which is comprised of 23,000 points of sale.
Germany’s betting market is among Europe’s largest and is currently undergoing regulatory reforms. As many as 15 of the country’s 16 regions signed the Interstate Treaty at the end of 2011 and most of these regions have already ratified it in their local parliaments. The new Treaty is in force since beginning of July 2012. Aiming to become the leader of Germany’s betting market, ODDSET will apply for one of the twenty upcoming national concessions to be issued for the organization and brokerage of sports betting for an initial period of seven (7) years.
Mr. Constantinos Antonopoulos, INTRALOT Group CEO, stated: “We are very pleased to become part of this great opening of the German market, one of the most important markets in Europe and worldwide. SGI’s considerable experience and knowledge of the local market together with INTRALOT’s extensive know-how of sports betting operations and the powerful market position of the German State Lotteries create the synergy to address the challenges of the newly regulated German market. Our common objective is to establish through ODDSET a modern, attractive and competitive product portfolio in the German market enabling ODDSET to become the market leader in sports betting in the Federal Republic of Germany over the medium term.”
The Parties have the common objective of supporting ODDSET to launch first in Germany’s regulated sports betting market, which is estimated to take place before the end of 2012.
About INTRALOT
INTRALOT, a public listed company, is the leading supplier of integrated gaming and transaction processing systems, innovative game content, sports betting management and interactive gaming services to state-licensed gaming organizations worldwide. Its broad portfolio of products & services, its know-how of Lottery, Betting, Racing & Video Lottery operations and its leading-edge technology, give INTRALOT a competitive advantage which contributes directly to customers’ efficiency, profitability and growth. With presence in more than 53 countries, with approximately 5.500 people and revenues of €1.2 billion for 2011, INTRALOT has established its presence on all 5 continents.
03 May 2012
First sports betting licenses in Schleswig-Holstein
by Martin Arendts, M.B.L.-HSG
The German state of Schleswig-Holstein has issued several sports betting licenses to private operators. Licenses have been issued inter alia to Polco Limited, a subsidiary of Betfair, and to Personal Exchange International, a subsidiary of JAXX SE. A license was also granted to the former monopoly operator, Nordwestlotto. 23 more applications are pending. 14 applicants want to offer casino games (which also can be licensed under the Gambling Act of Schleswig-Holstein).
19 July 2011
Online gaming and betting: proposed new law in Germany criticised by the European Commission
Brussels, 19 July 2011
The European Commission today issued a ‘detailed opinion’ against the draft German State Gambling Treaty. This detailed opinion confirms that the Commission believes the proposed German State Treaty is in breach of EU law. If the draft is not substantially changed after this warning, Germany risks formal infringement proceedings, referral to the European Court of Justice (CJEU) and ultimately financial penalties.
The Commission has identified a number of provisions in the German draft State Gambling Treaty which are in conflict with the EU Treaty. While the draft law appears to open the market for online sports betting operators from all EU member states, it in practice reserves the market for the incumbent German monopolies. EGBA considers that several requirements in the draft State Treaty are in breach of EU law, including:
• The total number of sports betting licences available is limited without justification to seven (7), whereas the state monopoly for sports betting is exempt from the requirement to apply for a licence;
• An exorbitant tax of 16.67 percent of the amount wagered is imposed on all operators. This will make online wagering uneconomic, excluding online operators and is clearly intended to protect the current state monopoly on offline bets from online competition;
• The licensing system ‘bundles’ offline and online sports betting together and applies a commercial viability test to would-be operators, thus putting online-only operators at an automatic disadvantage in applying for a licence;
• While privately owned land-based premises are limited to 350 per license, no such restriction applies to outlets employed by the state-owned operators
• Certain casino games may be offered online but only by specified casino game operators that are already operating land-based casino games in Germany;
• An illegal expansion of marketing is encouraged for the state monopoly, but marketing restrictions are placed on other operators;
• The license fee will favour those applicants with land-based operations that attract higher margins and appears to be unrelated to the costs incurred to deliver and then maintain the license.
Sigrid Ligné, Secretary General of EGBA said today: ‘The draft German treaty has many provisions which are in conflict with EU law. But worse: it is clear that, taken together and especially including a prohibitive tax on wagers from which the incumbent state monopoly is exempt, these provisions effectively slam the door in the face of EU operators from other member states and will in fact extend the monopoly for offline to online games. The Commission must act quickly to stop this test case for its stated aim of a common EU framework for this sector ’.
The proposed German State Gambling Treaty comes after a number of preliminary rulings by the EU Court that the current State Treaty is incompatible with EU law (see inter alia Carmen Media, C- 46/08). The current law expires at the end of 2011 and the intention was to have the new treaty to come into force in January 2012.
In Germany the regions, or Länder, are competent for lotteries and sports betting while casinos and slot machines are the competence of the federal state. There is however no agreement between the Länder on this draft treaty on sports betting. Schleswig Holstein has already notified an alternative gambling law that will foster a commercially viable sports betting market for EU-licensed operators, thereby removing the attractions of the black market for consumers. The Commission raised no objections to such law and EGBA remains fully supportive of the efforts to enact it.
According to a study by Gold Media, the gross online gaming and betting revenue in Germany was €1 billion in 2009, with a 30 percent annual growth rate (1). Online gaming is a large and vibrant segment of the digital economy in Germany. Whilst material, failing to comply with EU law is only one of the major issues with the proposed State Gambling Treaty. The draft Treaty, if enacted as proposed will simply drive consumers into the hands of black market operators that will not deliver the same levels of consumer protection, that will reduce visibility of the online gaming and betting market in Germany and will forego the opportunity to raise tax revenue.
(1) http://www.goldmedia.com/en/press/newsroom/
study-betting-and-gambling-in-germany.html
For further information or comment please contact:
Sigrid Ligné: +32 2 554 08 90
Sigrid.Ligne@egba.eu
About EGBA
The EGBA is an association of leading European gaming and betting operators Bet-at-home.com, BetClic, bwinparty, Digibet, Expekt, Interwetten, and Unibet. EGBA is a Brussels-based non-profit association. It promotes the right of private gaming and betting operators that are regulated and licensed in one Member State to a fair market access throughout the European Union. Online gaming and betting is a fast growing market, but will remain for the next decades a limited part of the overall European gaming market in which the traditional land based offer is expected to grow from € 79.6 Billion GGR in 2009 to € 83 Billion GGR in 2012, thus keeping the lion’s share with 87% of the market. Source: H2 Gambling Capital, April 2010
The Notification Procedure
Under Directive 98/34/EC, Member States must notify to the European Commission and other Member States draft regulations regarding products and Information Society services such as online gaming and betting, before adopting them. This procedure is aimed at preventing Member States from creating new barriers to the internal market freedoms by giving the opportunity to the Commission and Member States to evaluate the content of a draft law before it is adopted.
The notification of a text to the Commission opens a three month standstill period during which the draft text must not be adopted. This period allows the Commission and Member States to ascertain whether the draft text presents any unjustified barriers to the internal market. The Commission and/or Member States may then issue:
• a detailed opinion, if they consider that the draft text would, if implemented, create barriers to trade, services or establishment within the EU;
• comments, if they consider that the text raises issues of interpretation or requires further details; or
• no response, if they consider that the text is compatible with EU law.
A detailed opinion attempts to prevent Members States from adopting a text, which contains barriers to the internal market, or to urge them to remove the restrictive provisions, thereby avoiding unnecessary legislative work and future EU infringement proceedings.
Once a detailed opinion had been issued, the standstill period, during which the draft text must not be adopted, is extended by one month. If, after this time, the draft text is adopted without modification, the Commission can immediately commence an infringement procedure against the Member State’s newly adopted legislation.
To access the TRIS database and search for other draft laws see:
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/tris/pisa/app/search/index.cfm?lang=EN
The European Commission today issued a ‘detailed opinion’ against the draft German State Gambling Treaty. This detailed opinion confirms that the Commission believes the proposed German State Treaty is in breach of EU law. If the draft is not substantially changed after this warning, Germany risks formal infringement proceedings, referral to the European Court of Justice (CJEU) and ultimately financial penalties.
The Commission has identified a number of provisions in the German draft State Gambling Treaty which are in conflict with the EU Treaty. While the draft law appears to open the market for online sports betting operators from all EU member states, it in practice reserves the market for the incumbent German monopolies. EGBA considers that several requirements in the draft State Treaty are in breach of EU law, including:
• The total number of sports betting licences available is limited without justification to seven (7), whereas the state monopoly for sports betting is exempt from the requirement to apply for a licence;
• An exorbitant tax of 16.67 percent of the amount wagered is imposed on all operators. This will make online wagering uneconomic, excluding online operators and is clearly intended to protect the current state monopoly on offline bets from online competition;
• The licensing system ‘bundles’ offline and online sports betting together and applies a commercial viability test to would-be operators, thus putting online-only operators at an automatic disadvantage in applying for a licence;
• While privately owned land-based premises are limited to 350 per license, no such restriction applies to outlets employed by the state-owned operators
• Certain casino games may be offered online but only by specified casino game operators that are already operating land-based casino games in Germany;
• An illegal expansion of marketing is encouraged for the state monopoly, but marketing restrictions are placed on other operators;
• The license fee will favour those applicants with land-based operations that attract higher margins and appears to be unrelated to the costs incurred to deliver and then maintain the license.
Sigrid Ligné, Secretary General of EGBA said today: ‘The draft German treaty has many provisions which are in conflict with EU law. But worse: it is clear that, taken together and especially including a prohibitive tax on wagers from which the incumbent state monopoly is exempt, these provisions effectively slam the door in the face of EU operators from other member states and will in fact extend the monopoly for offline to online games. The Commission must act quickly to stop this test case for its stated aim of a common EU framework for this sector ’.
The proposed German State Gambling Treaty comes after a number of preliminary rulings by the EU Court that the current State Treaty is incompatible with EU law (see inter alia Carmen Media, C- 46/08). The current law expires at the end of 2011 and the intention was to have the new treaty to come into force in January 2012.
In Germany the regions, or Länder, are competent for lotteries and sports betting while casinos and slot machines are the competence of the federal state. There is however no agreement between the Länder on this draft treaty on sports betting. Schleswig Holstein has already notified an alternative gambling law that will foster a commercially viable sports betting market for EU-licensed operators, thereby removing the attractions of the black market for consumers. The Commission raised no objections to such law and EGBA remains fully supportive of the efforts to enact it.
According to a study by Gold Media, the gross online gaming and betting revenue in Germany was €1 billion in 2009, with a 30 percent annual growth rate (1). Online gaming is a large and vibrant segment of the digital economy in Germany. Whilst material, failing to comply with EU law is only one of the major issues with the proposed State Gambling Treaty. The draft Treaty, if enacted as proposed will simply drive consumers into the hands of black market operators that will not deliver the same levels of consumer protection, that will reduce visibility of the online gaming and betting market in Germany and will forego the opportunity to raise tax revenue.
(1) http://www.goldmedia.com/en/press/newsroom/
study-betting-and-gambling-in-germany.html
For further information or comment please contact:
Sigrid Ligné: +32 2 554 08 90
Sigrid.Ligne@egba.eu
About EGBA
The EGBA is an association of leading European gaming and betting operators Bet-at-home.com, BetClic, bwinparty, Digibet, Expekt, Interwetten, and Unibet. EGBA is a Brussels-based non-profit association. It promotes the right of private gaming and betting operators that are regulated and licensed in one Member State to a fair market access throughout the European Union. Online gaming and betting is a fast growing market, but will remain for the next decades a limited part of the overall European gaming market in which the traditional land based offer is expected to grow from € 79.6 Billion GGR in 2009 to € 83 Billion GGR in 2012, thus keeping the lion’s share with 87% of the market. Source: H2 Gambling Capital, April 2010
The Notification Procedure
Under Directive 98/34/EC, Member States must notify to the European Commission and other Member States draft regulations regarding products and Information Society services such as online gaming and betting, before adopting them. This procedure is aimed at preventing Member States from creating new barriers to the internal market freedoms by giving the opportunity to the Commission and Member States to evaluate the content of a draft law before it is adopted.
The notification of a text to the Commission opens a three month standstill period during which the draft text must not be adopted. This period allows the Commission and Member States to ascertain whether the draft text presents any unjustified barriers to the internal market. The Commission and/or Member States may then issue:
• a detailed opinion, if they consider that the draft text would, if implemented, create barriers to trade, services or establishment within the EU;
• comments, if they consider that the text raises issues of interpretation or requires further details; or
• no response, if they consider that the text is compatible with EU law.
A detailed opinion attempts to prevent Members States from adopting a text, which contains barriers to the internal market, or to urge them to remove the restrictive provisions, thereby avoiding unnecessary legislative work and future EU infringement proceedings.
Once a detailed opinion had been issued, the standstill period, during which the draft text must not be adopted, is extended by one month. If, after this time, the draft text is adopted without modification, the Commission can immediately commence an infringement procedure against the Member State’s newly adopted legislation.
To access the TRIS database and search for other draft laws see:
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/tris/pisa/app/search/index.cfm?lang=EN
19 March 2011
Sportwettenrecht120 final
Check out this SlideShare Presentation:
Sportwettenrecht120 final
View more documents from Martin Arendts.
A View of European Gambling Regulation
Check out this SlideShare Presentation:
A view of european gambling regulation
View more documents from Martin Arendts.
01 February 2011
Principality of Liechtenstein: Call for Tenders for a Casino License
by Attorney-at-Law Martin Arendts, M.B.L.-HSG
The new Gambling Act (Geldspielgesetz - GSG) and the Casino Ordinance (Spielbankenverordnung - SPBV) of the Principality of Liechtenstein allow the operation of a casino. Today, the government authorised the call for tenders. Until an evaluation report will be published, only one license will be granted. Applications for the license have to be filed by 31 March 2011, 4:30 p.m.
The new Gambling Act (Geldspielgesetz - GSG) and the Casino Ordinance (Spielbankenverordnung - SPBV) of the Principality of Liechtenstein allow the operation of a casino. Today, the government authorised the call for tenders. Until an evaluation report will be published, only one license will be granted. Applications for the license have to be filed by 31 March 2011, 4:30 p.m.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)