Maloof Palms Casino Ownership

1. Palms Casino Ownership
2. Maloof Palms Casino Ownership Information
3. Maloof Palms Casino
4. Maloof Palms Casino Ownership Guide
5. Maloof Palms Casino Ownership Search
6. Maloof Palms Casino Ownership Properties

Maloof, who opened the Palms in 2001, may partner with the private equity firms to remain the operator with a reduced ownership stake, according to Bloomberg News. “Should a deal be completed, given the would-be ownership structure of Palms, we would anticipate the property being rolled into the Caesars portfolio,” Santarelli told. George Maloof, the driving force behind the off-Strip property that opened in 2001, signed a 10-year employment agreement to manage the hotel-casino. Maloof, chairman of the board of the new company, will own 2 percent of the Palms, with options to acquire an additional 7.5 percent stake.

The Maloof family is a prominent American family based in Las Vegas, Nevada, who are owners of numerous business properties in the Western United States. The origin of the family name is Maalouf and is of Lebanese descent via their paternal grandfather.

Originally from New Mexico, the family's success began with the distribution rights for Coors Beer in the Southwest region of the US in 1937. The Maloofs were the owners of the Sacramento Kings of the National Basketball Association (NBA) from 1998 until 2013 and are minority owners of the Vegas Golden Knights of the National Hockey League (NHL). Notable family members include George J. Maloof Sr., Adrienne Maloof, and George J. Maloof Jr.

Sports[edit]

The family owned a sports franchise in the Sacramento, California market, the NBA's Sacramento Kings, from 1998 until 2013. In 2013 the family sold the 65% of the team they owned for $347 million to a Sacramento group, led by Vivek Ranadive, which was committed to building a new arena in downtown Sacramento that had previously been rebuked by the Maloofs.^[1] The Maloofs had acquired a minority interest in the Kings in 1998 and took majority control the following year, with Joe and Gavin operating the franchise. As part of the purchase of the Kings, they also acquired the team's sister franchise in the WNBA, the Sacramento Monarchs. The Maloofs operated the Monarchs until 2009, when the WNBA was unable to find a new owner and the team folded. Prior to the sale of the team, a previous deal had been reached to sell the Kings to Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer and investor Chris Hansen, who had hoped to move the team to Seattle. This sale was nullified on May 15, 2013, when the NBA Board of Governors denied the relocation in a vote of 22-8.^[2] The Maloof family also briefly owned the Houston Rockets from 1979-1982. The Rockets made the NBA Finals in 1981. The team was sold to Charlie Thomas in 1982. The Maloofs are also the minority owners of the Vegas Golden Knights of the NHL, who made it to the Stanley Cup Finals in their inaugural season.

Las Vegas[edit]

In 1994, the Maloof family opened the Fiesta Rancho hotel-casino in North Las Vegas, and sold it in 2000 for over $185 million. The money was reinvested into the creation of the Palms Casino Resort hotel and casino.

The Maloofs sold their beer distribution in an unsuccessful attempt to save the Palms and Palms Towers. In 2011 a restructuring gave private equity firms TPG Capital and Leonard Green & Partners each a 49% share, leaving the Maloofs with 2% ownership.^[3]

Maloof Productions[edit]

The Maloofs have expanded their business ventures into entertainment with the creation of Maloof Productions. Through its television division, Maloof Television, they have produced the reality series Bullrun for Spike TV^[4] in 2007, Speed Channel^[5] in 2009, and Living Lohan, the E! reality series running in 2008.^[6] In 2008 the family was developing Rebuilding the Kingdom with reality television producer Mark Burnett.^[7] The film division, Maloof Motion Pictures, produced the 2005 film Feast and as of 2007 was developing The Big Bizarro, starring Pierce Brosnan.^[8]

Skateboarding[edit]

Founded in 2008 by Joe and Gavin Maloof, the Maloof Money Cup is a competition for both professional and amateur skateboarders. The Orange County, US, dates of the contest series include the US Pro Men's and Women's Street Championships, the US Pro Vert Championships, and the Maloof Money Cup AM Championships.

A spring New York date and a fall (autumn) South Africa date were added in 2010 and 2011, respectively. In 2012, the Maloofs have focused on the South African event, entitled the Maloof Money Cup World Skateboarding Championships, and canceled the Orange County event due to logistical issues.^[9]

The Maloof family is also one of the main sponsors of the game Skate 3 offering a slew of different competitions

Family members[edit]

The family consists of George J. Maloof, Sr. deceased, and now headed by his wife Colleen, followed by their children:

• Joe Maloof (born November 15, 1955)
• Gavin Maloof (born October 9, 1956)
• Adrienne Maloof (born September 1, 1961)
• George J. Maloof, Jr. (born September 2, 1964)
• Phillip Maloof (born May 16, 1967). A New Mexico state senator in the late 1990s, ran unsuccessfully against Heather Wilson for New Mexico's 1st congressional district in 1998.

Albert Maloof Sr., a cousin of George J. Maloof, Sr., is best known for his distribution empire in the Southeastern United States.

In popular culture[edit]

• The Maloofs sponsor skateboard video game competitions in Skate 3
• The Maloofs frequently appeared on the television show, Las Vegas.
• Phil Maloof owns the console of the Barton organ installed at Chicago Stadium.
• The Maloof brothers made a cameo in Lil Wayne's music video 'Lollipop', which was filmed at Gavin Maloof's multimillion-dollar mansion in the Southern Highlands Golf Club, Las Vegas.
• They also make an appearance in Ludacris' music video, 'What Them Girls Like'.
• On March 28, 2010, Gavin appeared as a guest judge on Celebrity Apprentice 3, filling in for Ivanka Trump.
• George Maloof Jr. made several appearances on 'The Girls Next Door' starring Hugh Hefner, Holly Madison, Bridget Marquardt, and Kendra Wilkinson.
• Adrienne Maloof appeared in Bravo's The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills.^[10]

Criticisms[edit]

The Maloof family, especially Joe and Gavin, were under heavy fire in 2006 when they proposed building a new basketball arena in downtown Sacramento and were able to put a tax increase proposal on the fall election ballots. They wanted the taxpayers to pay for the majority of the arena instead of paying for it themselves. The proposal involved a quarter-cent sales tax hike aimed at raising $1.2 billion over the next 15 years. The city was divided between those who supported it and those who disapproved of it. There were rumors that the Maloofs were threatening to move both the Sacramento Kings and the Sacramento Monarchs to Las Vegas if they did not get a new arena. In November, voters overwhelmingly voted against the proposal.^[11]

A proposal to build a new arena at Cal Expo (the State Fairgrounds) which would include an upgrade to the fairgrounds as well as retail and housing developments was presented and accepted by the Cal Expo Board of Directors on February 27, 2009 but fell apart soon after, leaving Sacramento without a new arena.^[12]

Palms Casino Ownership

In late 2010, the Maloof family began negotiating with officials in Anaheim, California in an effort to move the Kings franchise to that city, despite repeated assurances that the team would stay in Sacramento. On March 29, 2011, the City of Anaheim approved bond measures aimed at assisting the Kings move. Finally, on May 2, 2011, the NBA put a halt to the move to Anaheim, California because the current bills that were owed to the city of Sacramento, California gave the city just cause to keep them in Sacramento. In June 2011, the Maloof brothers, Joe and Gavin, (along with successful investor Ghassan El Morabit), sold majority share of the Palms to two lending companies (Leonard Green & Partners LP in Los Angeles and TPG Capital in Texas), allowing them to continue building their stadium.^[13]

Upon the news of a possible relocation, Sacramento Kings launched a grassroots effort with pledges of over $800,000 to go to a new arena. This and other grassroots efforts, along with Mayor Kevin Johnson's presentation to the NBA Board of Governors, convinced the NBA to delay any relocation authorization for one year. Within this one year time frame (deadline: March 2012) a completed arena plan, with funding, must be in place. Plans were approved by the City Council in March 2012^[14] and construction for the Kings' new arena, the Golden 1 Center, began on October 29, 2014^[15] and it was completed prior to the start of the 2016-17 NBA Season.^[16]

In February 2013, they agreed to sell the Sacramento Kings to a group led by Chris Hansen and Steve Ballmer, who promised to relocate the team to Seattle and rename them the Seattle SuperSonics. Kevin Johnson brought a group together led by Vivek Ranadive to keep the team in Sacramento. The local fan base rallied behind him in an effort to keep the team. The new ownership group was established and a deal struck with the city to build a new arena in downtown Sacramento. On May 15, 2013, the NBA Board of Governors denied the relocation bid, effectively nullifying the sale to the Seattle group. The following day, the Maloofs agreed to sell the team to the Sacramento group.

During the months leading up to the sale, the Seattle group raised their offer twice and it was reported that the Maloofs were going to refuse to sell to the Sacramento group. At one point, the Chris Hansen group had offered to buy 20% of the team with the Maloofs retaining their majority ownership, even after the Sacramento group came together with an offer. However, Sacramento continued to work directly with the NBA, and the Maloofs sale to the Sacramento group eventually went through.

References[edit]

1. ^Bizjak, Tony (May 16, 2013). 'Sacramento group, Maloof family reach deal for Kings'. Sacramento Bee. Archived from the original on 2 June 2013. Retrieved 17 May 2013.
2. ^Golliver, Ben (2015-05-15). 'NBA Board of Governors votes to reject Kings relocation to Seattle'. Sports Illustrated. Archived from the original on 7 June 2013. Retrieved 17 May 2013.
3. ^'George Maloof: Little change in operations as family ownership hits 2 percent'. 21 June 2011. Retrieved 25 May 2017.
4. ^Martin, Denise (2006-07-30). 'Reality's Fast Lane'. Variety. Retrieved 2007-04-27.
5. ^Arneson, Erik (2009-01-05). 'Popular Bullrun Moves to SPEED for 2009'. SPEEDtv.com. Archived from the original on 2011-07-24. Retrieved 2009-03-13.
6. ^Thielman, Sam (2008-03-04). 'E! greenlights Lohan reality show'. Variety. Retrieved 2008-06-16.
7. ^'Mark Burnett, Maloofs to Follow Kings'. Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on November 22, 2008. Retrieved 2008-11-25.
8. ^Fleming, Michael (2007-01-17). 'Brosnan to turn Wise novel into film'. Variety. Retrieved 2007-02-24.
9. ^Chris Nieratko (6 February 2012). 'Maloof Money Cup series returns for 2012'. ESPN Action Sports. ESPN Internet Ventures. Archived from the original on 15 June 2012. Retrieved 24 September 2012.
10. ^'Adrienne Maloof and Taylor Ford Armstrong rumored to be bravos last two real housewives of Beverly Hills'. The Daily Truffle. Archived from the original on 2010-11-07.
11. ^'Local Ballot Measure Results From November'. California Planning & Development Report.
12. ^http://www.calexpo.com/Html/nba_arena.aspArchived May 1, 2009, at the Wayback MachineCal Expo
13. ^'Maloofs reportedly selling controlling stake in Palms Casino'. World News.
14. ^'Sacramento OKs new arena plan to keep Kings'. ESPN.com. Retrieved 2016-12-13.
15. ^'Kings break ground on new downtown Sacramento arena'. sacbee. Retrieved 2016-12-13.
16. ^Newcomb, Tim. 'Kings' new arena was designed with Sacramento in mind'. SI.com. Retrieved 2016-12-13.

External links[edit]

• Maloof Productions Maloof Productions website.
• The Palms Resort and Casino The Palms Casino Resort website.
• Maloof family on IMDb

Fiesta Palms, LLC; Maloof Music and Entertainment; Phil Maloof, Gavin Maloof, George Maloof, and Joe Maloof v. Mindscape Entertainment and Todd Lipnick

Claim Number:FA0511000592407

PARTIES

Complainants are Fiesta Palms, LLC; Maloof Music and Entertainment; Phil Maloof, Gavin Maloof, George Maloof, and Joe Maloof (collectively, “Complainant”), represented by Scott M. Hervey, of Weintraub Genshlea Chediak Law Corporation, 400 Capitol Mall, 11th Floor, Sacramento, CA, 95814.Respondent is Mindscape Entertainment and Todd Lipnick (“Respondent”), 1501 N. State St., Chicago, IL 60610.

Maloof Palms Casino Ownership Information

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <maloofmusic.com>, registered with DomainDiscover.

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

Sandra Franklin as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on November 7, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 7, 2005.

On November 14, 2005, DomainDiscover confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <maloofmusic.com> domain name is registered with DomainDiscover and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.DomainDiscover has verified that Respondent is bound by the DomainDiscover registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the 'Policy').

On November 16, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the 'Commencement Notification'), setting a deadline of December 6, 2005 by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@maloofmusic.com by e-mail.

Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

On December 12, 2005, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra Franklin as Panelist.

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the 'Panel') finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the 'Rules') 'to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent.'Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A.Complainant makes the following assertions:

1.Respondent’s <maloofmusic.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MALOOF mark.

2.Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <maloofmusic.com> domain name.

3.Respondent registered and used the <maloofmusic.com> domain name in bad faith.

B.Respondent failed to submit a conforming Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

Complainant, Maloof Music and Entertainment, was formed in September 2003 as a joint venture between certain members of the Maloof family and the record label, Interscope.The Maloof family has gained fame as a result of its association with the world-renowned Palms Casino and Resort Hotel in Las Vegas (the “Palms”).The Palms, owned and operated by Fiesta Palms, LLC, opened on November 15, 2001, after its principals, the Maloof family, invested $265 million in the project.Since its first day of operation, the Palms has gained a worldwide reputation as a hip and fashionable casino and resort hotel, attracting celebrities, sport stars and the “in crowd” from all around the world.On average, approximately 125,000 guests visit the Palms each week.

The Palms and its owners, the Maloof family, have been profiled in Forbes, The Sacramento Bee, Bloomberg, The Los Angeles Times, The Las Vegas Review Journal, Canadian Business, and Cigar Aficionado, just to name a few.Contributing equally to the Maloof’s fame is their ownership of the NBA franchise team, the Sacramento Kings.

Announcements of the Maloof’s foray into the entertainment and music industry were reported in numerous news publications in early 2003.As discussed in a Hollywood Reporter article, the business strategy underlying the launch of the Maloof’s label involves leveraging their existing entertainment properties (the Kings, the Palms, and the Maloof’s TV and motion picture production company) for cross promotion, marketing and distribution.

The Maloof name is widely associated in the field of entertainment.Aside from their well known ownership of the Sacramento Kings, the Maloofs have interests in variety of television and motion picture properties.The Maloof brothers and the Palms have appeared or have been mentioned in the following television shows:NBC’s Las Vegas,ABC’s Jimmy Kimmel Live,Bravo’s Emmy nominated Project Greenlight and Celebrity Poker Showdown, E!’s Party @ the Palms and Real World: True Hollywood Story, MTV’s Real World Las Vegas,and HDNet’s Palms Girl Search.In addition, the Maloof’s motion picture production company, Maloof Motion Pictures, and George, Joe, Phil and Gavin Maloof were executive producers of the 2005 motion picture Feast.

In addition to the common law rights in the MALOOF mark, Complainant has also registered a number of trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office that incorporate the “Maloof” name.Those marks are PALMS A MALOOF CASINO RESORT (Reg. Nos. 2,646,679; 2,742,897; 2,772,084; 2,742,908; 2,795,274; 2,729,772 and 2,678,712), registered on November 5, 2005, July 29, 2003, October 7, 2003, July, 29 2003, December 16, 2003, June 24, 2003, January 21, 2003, respectively.

Maloof Palms Casino

Respondent, Mindscape Entertainment, registered the <maloofmusic.com> domain name on April 20, 2003 at the behest of Complainant.At the time, Respondent was an employee of Complainant’s business.Subsequent communication with Respondent has not resulted in the transfer of the domain name registration.

The <maloofmusic.com> domain name refers to Complainant’s official website at <palms.com>.

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to 'decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.'

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules.The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory.SeeVertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see alsoTalk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

(1)the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2)Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has submitted abundant evidence to demonstrate that it has common law rights in its MALOOF mark, including evidence of investment capital, media coverage, and television appearances.See Bibbero Sys., Inc. v. Tseu & Assoc., FA 94416 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 9, 2000) (finding, while the complainant had registered the BIBBERO SYSTEMS, INC. mark, it also had common law rights in the BIBBERO mark because it had developed brand name recognition with the word “bibbero”); Fishtech, Inc. v. Rossiter, FA 92976 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 10, 2000) (finding that the complainant has common law rights in the mark FISHTECH that it has used since 1982).

The Panel finds that Respondent’s <maloofmusic.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MALOOF mark because the only difference is the addition of the word “music,” which does not significantly distinguish the domain name from the mark.See Novell, Inc. v. Taeho Kim, FA 167964 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2003) (finding the <novellsolutions.com> domain name confusingly similar to the NOVELL mark despite the addition of the descriptive term “solutions” because even though “the word ‘solutions’ is descriptive when used for software, Respondent has used this word paired with Complainant's trademark NOVELL”); Pfizer, Inc. v. Suger, D2002-0187 (WIPO Apr. 24, 2002) (finding that because the subject domain name incorporates the VIAGRA mark in its entirety, and deviates only by the addition of the word “bomb,” the domain name is rendered confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark).

The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent registered the disputed domain name when it was Complainant’s employee, and at Complainant’s behest.The Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name registered in its scope of employment and at its employer’s behest.See Vinidex Pty Ltd. v. Auinger, AF-0402 (eResolution Oct. 18, 2000) (finding that the respondent lacked rights and legitimate interests in the domain name because it did not resolve to a developed website and the respondent, a former employee of the complainant, had constructive knowledge of the complainant’s rights in the mark); Nasaco Elecs. Pte Ltd. v. A&O Computer AG, D2000-0374 (WIPO July 14, 2000) (finding that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name where the respondent’s former employee registered the domain name and transferred it to the respondent, who has since made no use of the domain name).

Additionally, there is nothing in the record, including the WHOIS registration information, which demonstrates that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); Gallup, Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that the respondent does not have rights in a domain name when the respondent is not known by the mark).

The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent registered the disputed domain name when it was Complainant’s employee.The Panel finds that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s rights in the MALOOF mark, and its subsequent registration of the <maloofmusic.com> domain name in its own name exhibits bad faith registration and use.See Arab Bank for Inv. & Foreign Trade v. Akkou, D2000-1399 (WIPO Dec. 19, 2000) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was formerly employed by the complainant, was fully aware of the name of her employer, and made no use of the infringing domain name); 163972 Canada, Inc. v. Ursino, AF-0211 (e-Resolution July 3, 2000) (finding that because the respondent was hired by the complainant to help design and register the complainant’s websites, the respondent had intimate knowledge of the complainant’s business and use of its TEENFLO mark.Therefore,the respondent’s registration of the <teenflo.com> domain name was in bad faith).

The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

DECISION

Maloof Palms Casino Ownership Guide

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

Maloof Palms Casino Ownership Search

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <maloofmusic.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

Sandra Franklin, Panelist

Dated:December 27, 2005

Maloof Palms Casino Ownership Properties

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page

National Arbitration Forum