1. SPORTS BETTING IN FRANCE Thibault Verbiest Partner, Ulys thibault.verbiest@ulys.net www.gaminglaw.eu 3rd Legal Gaming Summit 26 January 2009 London

2. TOWARDS A HARMONISED EU GAMING LAW November 2008: Report from the French presidency on the 27 legal frameworks for gambling. Significant similarities between these policies. Planned cooperation on: money laundering, fraud and corruption cap on pay-outs end of double taxation TO BE CONTINUED…

3. CASE-LAW: FRENCH GAMBLING LAW

4. ZETURF Cour de Cassation, 10 July 2007 PMU had sued Zeturf - condemned by Paris Court of Appeal. Cour de Cassation overturns Court of Appeal’s decision (EU arguments): Questions the “raison d’être” of the Horse-Race monopoly in the light of ECJ case-law: is the barrier to free provision of services justified and necessary? Questions proportionality of the blanket prohibition – need to check if the MS of origin protects consumers.

5. MR. BOOKMAKER 2002: PMU lodges a complaint against Mr Bookmaker 2004: FDJ lodges a complaint against Mr Bookmaker 2005: Unibet buys Mr. Bookmaker April 2007: French gaming police requests interviews with Didier Dewyn and Petter Nylander Dewyn is interviewed by the police, heard by a judge, and released on bail (€ 150,000)

6. MR.BOOMAKER Petter Nylander did not attend (claims EU defence) 22 October 2007: European arrest warrant against Petter Nylander. Arrested in Amsterdam and released on bail. 25 October 2007: extradited to France. 31 October: released on bail + promise to meet the judge when requested to.

7. MR. BOOKMAKER C.A.Versailles,18 January 2008 Not enough material to decide whether French gaming laws comply with E.U. law. The court orders further investigation including interviewing members of the government. = de facto WAIT AND SEE situation for French Courts.

8. CASE-LAW: FRENCH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

9. TGI Paris, 30 Jan. 2008: Juventus c. Unibet & William Hill Right to information vs. Copyright Juventus argues that Unibet and William Hill violates its copyright by using it on their websites… Whereas Unibet and William Hill argue that they only use that name for identification purposes. Court says: the use of a brand’s name must be strictly limited to sports betting activities. Not the case when operators use that name for advertising purposes. JUVENTUS V. UNIBET and WILLIAM HILL

10. FFT V. UNIBET and EXPEKT TGI Paris, 30 May 2008 FFT owns several brands including “French Open” and “Roland Garros” Unibet and Expekt use these brands to identify the events. FFT says that French Sports Code grants them the right to exploit the events they organise. The tribunal condemns the operators for violation of sports code.

11. PSG v. UNIBET and BWIN TGI, Paris, 17 June 2008 PSG owns the brand and says that operators use its brand for their own commercial benefit. Unibet: same defence as previously The tribunal says that the use of the brand is not abusive since the football club has to be identified by its brand and Unibet and Bwin do not unduly benefit from the club investments.

12. CONCLUSION Same courts = different decisions Next gaming legislation needs to organise the exploitation of such events through:  the recognition a right for sport events organisers to be directly paid for any exploitation of their event or,  sponsorship or,  a contribution of operators to a global fund which will serve for all sports.

13. Thank you for your attention! Thibault Verbiest Partner, Ulys www.ulys.net www.gaminglaw.eu