A federal judge in Nevada has denied L&W’s motion to dismiss claims in Aristocrat’s Dragon Train lawsuit, allowing the case to move forward.
A federal judge in Nevada has denied Light & Wonder’s motion to dismiss several claims in Aristocrat’s Dragon Train lawsuit, allowing the case to move forward.
In a ruling issued 18 November, US District Judge Gloria M. Navarro rejected arguments that Aristocrat’s claims were precluded by copyright law or insufficiently pleaded.
The court found Aristocrat had sufficiently alleged that Light & Wonder copied distinctive design elements of its Dragon Link slot machine games.
The lawsuit alleges L&W engaged in a deliberate strategy to replicate Aristocrat’s game design, including renaming games, creating similar-looking titles like “Jewel of the Dragon,” and hiring a former Aristocrat designer to develop its competing Dragon Train game.
It follows the court ordering an injunction for Light & Wonder to stop profiting from the game, which led to a 20% share price decline and the company removing all land-based Dragon Train units.
The Matt Wilson-led online and land-based gaming supplier said last month it had begun work developing a new, legally compliant version of the game, and that the designer in question was no longer with the business.
While Light & Wonder was partially successful in seeing some claims dismissed in June, the judge ultimately permitted the key trade secret misappropriation and copyright infringement claims to move forward.
Light & Wonder again moves to dismiss Dragon Train claims
After Aristocrat amended its complaint on the judge’s order, Light & Wonder again moved to dismiss.
The business said in the complaint: “Aristocrat’s First Amended Complaint suffers from the same fatal deficiencies as its original Complaint. Aristocrat has not — and cannot — assert valid trade dress infringement or deceptive trade practices claims.”
Aristocrat’s trade dress claim focuses on specific visual elements like the Dragon Link logo, gold orbs, and bonus feature designs.
The court determined these elements could potentially serve as source-identifying features that might confuse consumers about the game’s origin.
Judge Navarro noted that Aristocrat provided sufficient allegations about the design’s distinctiveness, including evidence of extensive advertising, game placement in over 35 states, and positive consumer recognition.
The ruling allows Aristocrat to proceed with claims of trade dress infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, and copyright violation.