At the beginning of June 2025, the British giant Entain, owner of the Sportingbet trademark, saw its complaint rejected by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The company was seeking to prevent Italian operator Sportbet S.R.L. from registering the ‘Sportbet’ trademark. But against all expectations, the EUIPO rejected Entain’s opposition, ruling that the terms ‘sport’ and ‘bet’ are too generic to be protected by an exclusive right.
Between resemblance and likelihood of confusion: what did Entain argue?
Entain argued that the “Sportbet” trademark infringed on its own “Sportingbet” trademark, which has long been registered in several European countries: Germany, Malta, Greece, Portugal, Bulgaria, etc. In the company’s view, this phonetic and visual similarity could lead to mutual confusion among consumers.
The legal reasoning was twofold:
- Similarity of the trademarks: “Sportbet” versus “Sportingbet”
- Target addressees: same gaming sector and same audience
Despite these arguments, the EUIPO considered that these two elements were not sufficient to prove a real likelihood of confusion:
“Even assuming that the services are identical, there is no likelihood of confusion on the part of the public.”
The verdict is in: Overly generic language
The EUIPO has ruled that the words “sport” and “bet” are descriptive terms, widely used in the sector. As such, no operator can claim a monopoly over their use.
The authority also pointed out that, although the services of the two trademarks overlap, the visual and phonetic differences are sufficient to prevent any risk of confusion for consumers.
Evidence deemed insufficient
Entain submitted a wide range of documents, including marketing reports, internal data, application evaluations and revenue captures. However, this evidence was deemed to be promotional, lacking in objectivity, and in some cases exclusively related to the UK market, a territory now excluded from European proceedings since Brexit.
The rejection of the full objection was final: in addition, Entain is ordered to pay €300 in costs to Sportbet.
Why this case matters: A turning point in the battle over trademarks in iGaming
This decision resonates at a time when online gambling players are stepping up their legal battles to protect their brands. Like Aviator LLC’s recent victory over SPRIBE, this is a strong signal that simply claiming similarity is no longer enough when it comes to combining descriptive terms.
This decision limits the exclusive rights of major brands to words that are part of the sector’s everyday vocabulary. Future registrations will have to incorporate more distinctive elements (specific logos, original typography, etc.) if they are to stand up to opposition.
A tug of war that redefines the codes
The EUIPO’s rejection calls into question the logic of appropriating common terms in iGaming. This verdict emphasises the need to stand out in a saturated market, not only through supply but also through brand identity. In short, the Sportbet case illustrates the extent to which intellectual protection now requires creative daring and a rigorous legal strategy.