In Kentucky, the case involving the seizure and potential forfeiture of 141 internet gambling domain names has stretched for two years. On Thursday, a major development sent the litigation back to the trial court level to assess whether the Interactive Media Entertainment and Gaming Association(iMEGA) and Interactive Gaming Council(IGC) have standing to sue. Judge Thomas Wingate will now decide the future of the case, which features the domain names of major online poker websites like PokerStars and Full Tilt at risk.

The Kentucky Supreme Court asserted in part, “Given the factual issues needing resolution, this Court cannot at this time determine iMEGA’s and IGC’s standing to pursue this writ action. The Circuit Court is best equipped to resolve those factual issues… Having standing in the underlying action is a prerequisite to having standing in any original actions related to the underlying actions.” In layman’s terms, the trial court must determine whether iMEGA and the IGC have standing to act on behalf of the 141 internet gambling domain names at risk.

In March, the Kentucky Supreme Court issued a separate decision claiming that iMEGA and the IGC lacked standing to act. In response, both organizations filed affidavits saying that several owners of the domain names at risk were members. iMEGA filed an affidavit signed by Yatahay Limited, the owners of TruePoker.com. The IGC concurrently filed an affidavit from Pocket Kings, the owners of FullTiltPoker.com.

The decision passed down on Thursday questioned the actual ownership of TruePoker.com, saying, “The Commonwealth has presented contrary evidence of another entity’s ownership of the domain name. Of course, whether Yatahay actually owns the domain is critical to iMEGA’s assertion of standing.”

The Supreme Court continued, “The Petitioners have not yet returned to the Circuit Court to even protest the theories of standing discussed in our earlier decision denying the requested writ in this case, much less asked the court to resolve the factual disputes upon which their standing claims depend.”

Although no date for oral arguments in front of Judge Wingate has been scheduled, iMEGA Chairman Joe Brennan told PocketFives.com what the organization’s main focus will be: “We have to show the standard to Wingate that the Supreme Court laid out for us [about standing]. Then, he’ll have to decide. Wingate didn’t hear arguments regarding standing because everything moved really fast in the beginning. This all started with an ex parte hearing when he was writing seizure orders.”

The 141 internet gambling URLs at risk were originally seized two years ago and face forfeiture. Whether due process was involved remains to be seen. After the domain names were seized, iMEGA and the IGC sought the intervention of the Kentucky Court of Appeals, which ruled in January 2009 by a 2:1 vote that the Commonwealth did not have jurisdiction to act. Accordingly, Brennan explained, “iMEGA has yet to lose an argument on the merits. We had the writ denied by the Kentucky Supreme Court because it was not ‘ripe’ for a standing argument. It wasn’t because we’re wrong; it was because we needed to make these arguments at the trial court.”

The case hinges in part on whether URLs constitute “gambling devices” under Kentucky state law. The term traditionally refers to objects like dice and cards that you’d find in an illegal gaming establishment. Whether it transcends into the online world remains to be seen. In the Court of Appeals’ lone dissenting opinion, the domain names were deemed part of a larger “gambling device.”

Brennan said that iMEGA would appeal if it were unsuccessful at the trial court level. He confidently told PocketFives.com, “The law hasn’t changed. All this has done is put more time back on the clock.” If the Commonwealth were successful in forfeiture, the 141 domain names could be inaccessible not just in Kentucky, but also across the world.

We’ll keep you posted on the latest right here on PocketFives.com. For more headlines, check out the Poker Legislation forum.